Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
D.N. PATEL, JYOTI SINGH, JJ.
The Delhi Development Authority – Appellant
Versus
Hello Home Education Society – Respondent
L.P.A. No. 224 of 2019, C.M. Application No. 15176 of 2019 (stay)
Decided On : 12-11-2021
Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 - Rule 44(3) - Demand-Cum-Allotment Letter - Allotment of Institutional land - Establishment of a Middle School - As per requisite procedure, Respondent was to prefer an application for allotment, in accordance with format prescribed by Appellant - Aggrieved by rejection letters and refusal of Appellant to issue an allotment letter, Respondent filed a writ petition being W.P. seeking quashing of rejection letters and a direction to Appellant to implement recommendation of allotment of Institutional plot, which had approval of Hon’ble L.G. as well as to restore letter of Sponsorship issued by Directorate of Education. Learned Single Judge, vide impugned judgment, quashed rejection letters and directed the Appellant to issue allotment letter to Respondent forthwith, upon payment of requisite charges, etc. Aggrieved by said judgment, Appellant has preferred present Appeal.
Finding of the Court:
It is evident from the above narrative of facts that approval for allotment of plot was given albeit for Jasola and necessary Essentiality Certificate was given even for Vasant Kunj. At that point in time, undisputedly un-amended Nazul Rules were applicable and only because there was complete inaction on part of Appellants the Demand-cum- Allotment Letter was not issued. In these circumstances, the amended Rules notified cannot apply to case of Respondent and deprive him of the right of allotment. Issuance of Essentiality Certificate in favour of Respondent for Vasant Kunj cannot be undermined as Essentiality Certificate is issued by Administrator under Rule 44(3) of Rules, 1973, only after satisfying himself, from material on record, that number of schools existing in zone, where new school is proposed to be opened, is insufficient to meet needs of zone and that granting of permission would not be against public interest. Once exercise was carried out and in wisdom of Administrator, Essentiality Certificate was issued by Directorate of Education, there was no justifiable reason for Appellant to have delayed issuance of Demand-cum-Allotment Letter and then illegally reject case of Respondent under garb of amendment to Nazul Rules, notified.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
D.N. PATEL, J.
1. Present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant, assailing the judgment dated 15.11.2018 (Annexure A to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal), passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 4459/2014. Appellant herein was Respondent No. 1 in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge and Respondent herein was the Petitioner. Parties are being referred to hereinafter as per their litigating status in the present Appeal.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. Delhi Development Authority (DDA)/Appellant herein invited applications in the year 2002 for allotment of Institutional land. Pursuant thereto, Respondent applied on 09.09.2002, for allotment of land for establishment of a Middle School.
3. As per the requisite procedure, Respondent was to prefer an application for allotment, in accordance with the format prescribed by the Appellant. The application format, which has been annexed with the present Appeal, indicates that in Column No. 11, the applicant was required to indicate at least three options with regard to the location or the area where the land was required, in order of preference.
4. Respondent gave three options in Column No. 11, as per the prescribed format and all the three areas fell under the South District. The options given by the Respondent, in order of preference were as follows:
(ii) Sarita Vihar.
(iii) Vasant Kunj.
5. Approximately 1000 applications were received by the Appellant. DDA constituted an Institutional Allotment Committee for consideration of allotment of land and the Committee scrutinized the applications and made recommendations. As per the Respondent (not denied by the Appellant), the Institutional Allotment Committee, constituted by DDA, recommended 292 applications for allotment of land for Middle Schools.
6. Respondent was required to complete the basic/codal formalities including submission of latest bank certificate, showing the details of the amount/FDRs, Sponsorship letter as well as Essentiality Certificate, from the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi.
7. On 10.03.2003, Respondent submitted the Bank Certificate issued by Oriental Bank of Commerce indicating an amount of Rs. 84,96,041/- as balance in the account of the Respondent Society. Essentiality Certificate dated 27.12.2000 had been submitted earlier by the Respondent, along with the application dated 09.09.2002.
8. Total of 49 recommendations were submitted by the Institutional Allotment Committee for approval and case of the Respondent was one amongst them. On 24.03.2003, recommendation of the Institutional Allotment Committee, made in favour of the Respondent for Jasola, was approved by the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor.
9. Demand-Cum-Allotment Letter dated 28.03.2003 was prepared for deposit of the premium of the land, however, the same could not be issued, as in the meantime, a complaint was received in the office of the Appellant. On receipt of the complaint, Appellant kept the issue of Demand-cum-Allotment Letter in abeyance, although Respondent had already furnished all the requisite documents for Jasola, New Delhi, including the Essentiality Certificate under Rule 44 of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 as well as Sponsorship letter.
10. On 29.01.2004, Respondent received Essentiality Certificate from Directorate of Education for establishing a Middle School at Vasant Kunj. Para 2 of the Essentiality Certificate conveyed the acceptance by the Directorate of Education for establishing a new School in Vasant Kunj.
11. Appellant, however, took no further steps to issue the Demand-cum-Allotment Letter and kept delaying the matter. On 19.04.2006, Appellant formulated and notified a new Policy for allotment of Institutional area for establishment of School, by amendment to the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Development Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to ‘Nazul Rules’). Finally, the Appellant cancelled the allotment on 19.06.2008, though approved by th
Decision that an aggrieved person was entitled to judicial review if he could show that a decision of public authority affected him of some benefit or advantage which in past he had been permitted to....
(1) Allotment of land – If any allotment had been made contrary to existing policy and rules, same would not form a basis of benefit being extended to another society as under law negative parity is ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for adherence to the Allotment Policy-2015 and the Rules of 1974 in making allotment decisions, and the importance of improving the Allotm....
The Divisional Commissioner had the power to examine and cancel the transfer of land, and the petitioner-Society had no legal right to claim allotment of land based on the Trust's decision.
The scope of a Review Petition is limited to the grounds specified in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, and new grounds cannot be introduced in a Review Petition.
A review petition cannot introduce new grounds and must focus on errors apparent in the original judgment; only minor corrections are permissible if they do not affect the ultimate conclusion.
The doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot sustain against policy changes affecting public interest, and no enforceable right arose from expired sponsorship for nursery school land allocation.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
