The DDA has the authority to revise the cost of land allotted to educational institutions, provided that the initial cost was fixed provisionally and the institutions have given an undertaking to pay the balance price as and when demanded by the DDA.

( 1 ) THE Little Angels Public School Society is the writ petitioner. The petitioner prays for quashing the demand made by the Delhi Development Authority (the second respondent) in its letter dated 6. 11. 1991. It is stated that the petitioner is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The petitioner has to own a building for the purpose of running a school for imparting education as envisaged by the object of the Society. The petitioner applied to Delhi Development Authority (the second respondent) for allotment of a plot of land.

( 2 ) ON 28. 3. 1988 the Deputy Director, Directorate of Education, Delhi, in response to the petitioner s letter it is stated that the case of the petitioner had been sponsored and recommendations had been made to the second respondent,. The petitioner gave an undertaking in the following terms: It is undertaken on behalf of the Society that Society will be willing to pay premium Rs. 8 lacs per acre plus annual ground rent thereon as prescribed by the Government.

( 3 ) BY letter dated 28. 10. 1988 the Delhi Development Authority wrote to the petitioner in the following terms: With reference to your letter No. dated on the above subject, I am directed to inform you that the rates for allotment of institutional land have since been revised by the Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development. The revised rates for South Delhi/west Delhi/north Delhi/east Delhi is Rs. 2,37,5000. 00 per acre. You are therefore, advised to augment the funds to the tune of Rs. 19,00,000. 00 and submit a Bank certificate to this effect within 15 days of the date of issue of this letter to enable this office to process the case.

( 4 ) BY a letter dated 1. 5. 1989 the Deputy Director (Institutional) wrote to the petitioner stating that he has decided to allot on perpetual lease hold basis a plot of land measuring two acres (50% for school building and 50% for play ground) for running Middle School at Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. The petitioner wad required to communicate acceptance and deposit a sum of Rs. 24,34,375. 00 towards the cost of land and Rs. 59,375. 00 towards the ground rent for the period of one year and Re. 1 p. a. as nominal ground rent for the play ground area. The letter is Annexure- D. By a letter dated 3. 10. 1989 the third respondent. Deputy Director, wrote to the petitioner stating that actual area of land was handed over to the petitionerwas2. 14 acres (1. 07 acre for school and 1. 07 acres for play ground) and the petitioner should pay an additional amount of Rs. 1,70,408 / -. This letter is annexed with the petition as Annexure-E. The petitioner had paid this amount also.

( 5 ) ON 3. 11. 1989, (Annexure-F) the second respondent issued No Objection Certificate for getting the plan sanctioned.

( 6 ) THE DDA by letter dated 6. 11. 1991 informed the petitioner that the Government of India had fixed the rates of land for the period from 1. 4. 1989 to 31. 3. 1991. What was earlier fixed was provisional. Taking into account the amount already paid the balance payable was Rs. 9,60,725. 00. On 26. 11. 1991, the petitioner wrote to the Delhi Development Authority requesting it to give the basis on which how the initial cost was fixed and revised cost had been worked out. There was no response and therefore, the petitioner had to file this writ petition.

( 7 ) THE case of the petitioner is that the cost was fixed on no profit no loss basis because the allotment was for the purpose of running an educational institution The DDA or the Ministry of Urban Development (UOI) cannot unilaterally revise the cost. The petitioner would refer to the affidavit filed by the Under Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development in Anand Education Society v. DDA (CW No. 2653 /88) wherein according to the petitioner, itwas stated by the Union of India that no profit no loss rates were adopted for institutional allotment. The petitioner has referred to Sec. 6 of the Delhi Development Authority A