The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Competent Authority's order cancelling a land allotment for a school due to reduced play field area. The judge found no merit in the petitioner's claims regarding hearing rights or discrimination.
Petition dismissed with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~3
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Standing Counsel with Ms. Komal and Ms. Kajri Gupta, Advs. for DDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO O R D E R % 13.03.2018
in the session beginning in May, 1989. Petitioner No.1 started a school on the said land as per the desire of the residents of the society on July 31, 1990 after taking its possession from the society and after completion of the requisite formalities. It is the case of the petitioners that an Essentiality Certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner No.1 by the Director of Education. The petitioners refer to a letter dated May 21, 1991 written to the Director of Education, requesting it to recommend the case to the DDA for an early allotment of two plots of land for the school building. The school was recognised on October 31, 1991 and upgraded upto class 10th on March 13, 1996. It was upgraded to Senior Secondary Level on May 06, 1998 and Senior Secondary Level to CBSE on December 15, 1998. It is the case of the petitioners that they have been approaching the respondent Authority for allotment of land. It is also their case, they had deposited an amount of 10,00,000/- on August 12, 1996 and 12,00,000/- on October 04, 1996, on account towards the cost of land. It is averred that the respondents regularised the demised land in favour of the petitioner No.1 on February 20, 2002. On February 05, 2013, a show cause notice was issued by the respondents at the office of the petitioner No.2 to which a reply was submitted on February 12, 2013. It is averred that petitioner No.2 submitted
an application dated February 14, 2013 with the Vice Chairman, DDA, Institutional Land Branch, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi for relaxing the terms and conditions of the regularisation of the land and also for execution of the lease deed of the land but the same was not properly considered. Thereafter, the petitioners had approached this Court in W.P. (C) 2020/2013 challenging the show cause notice issued by the DDA along with an application under 151 CPC for stay / interim orders and this Court vide its order dated March 20, 2013 issued to the DDA for May 14, 2013 and directed that any final action taken by the DDA shall be, subject to the outcome of the writ petition. The said interim order was made absolute and the matter was finally withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause.
the petitioners that the terms of regularisation issued vide letter dated February 20, 2002 stipulated that the Hon’ble Lt. Governor had regularised the land measuring 5450 Sqm. including 2180 Sqm. for school building and 3270 Sqm. for play field on the rates mentioned therein.
after the regularisation and also no additional demand was ever raised by the DDA against the plot/building of the school thereafter. He contended, again in the year 2013, the show cause notice as referred above was issued by the DDA to which the reply was given on February 12, 2013 wherein in para 13, it is reiterated that they have not raised any construction after issuance of the letter dated February 20, 2002 for regularisation. It is his submission that construction was in existence before 2002, which was in the form of school building. According to him, this aspect has not been considered by the respondents in the impugned order. He would also state, that even the request of the petitioners for personal hearing has not been considered favourably. Had a personal hearing been given the petitioners would have satisfied the authority about the existence of the construction in the year 2002 itself, which surely would have weighed with the DDA, and would not have resulted in the impugned order, which has a drastic effect.
the construction. He seeks the quashing of the impugned communication.
the respondents has drawn my attention to the order of regularisation dated February 20, 2002 to contend that 2180 Sqm. of land was meant for school building and 3270 Sqm. was meant for play field on payment of the amount specified therein. He has drawn my attention to a communication dated March 15, 2000 to contend license fee to be paid for the cost of land, measuring 2180 Sqm. for school building and land measuring 3270 Sqm. for play field were different inasmuch as for the school building, the rate was at 19.5 Lacs+Damages per acre along with annual ground rent @ 2 ½ per cent per annum whereas for the play field it was 1,000/- per acre per annum. He also refers to one of the terms in the communication i.e Clause 4 to contend that the play ground was to be kept open and no structure of even temporary nature could be raised on the land.
issue of regularisation of the construction by the DDA as it is only concerned with the land as allotted to the petitioners. He also refers to an FIR filed in the case and proceedings pending in this Court.
that the regularisation of the land was to the extent of 5450 sqm, out of which 2180 sqm was for school building and 3270 sqm for play field. The show cause notice issued was to the extent that the area of 3270 sqm has shrunk to 700 sqm, which DDA confirms in the impugned order. It is not the case of the petitioners that they have contested the area of 3270 sqm immediately after 2002 in a communication to DDA. So, it would be irrelevant if the plea that the construction was in existence in 2002 has not been considered by the Authority in the impugned order. That apart, the stand that the area was already constructed was taken for the first time in 2008 pursuant to a show cause notice.
ought to have been given to the petitioners is not appealing, as it is not his
case that an instruction/statutory Rule exist which obligates a hearing to be given to a party. There is no dispute that the show cause notice was given to which a reply was filed, which was considered. This itself is in compliance of principles of natural justice.
petition. The same is dismissed. No costs.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
MARCH 13, 2018 /aky
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Competent Authority acted correctly in determining the lease and cancelling the allotment of land due to reduction in play field area.
Whether the petitioner was required to be granted a personal hearing despite the receipt of the show cause notice.
Whether the plea of discrimination (negative equality) with another case (Laxman Public School) succeeds.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Laxman Public SchoolReferred¶27
Laxman Public School
D.A.V. COLLEGE TRUST AND MANAGEMENT SOCIETY AND ANR
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS
V. KAMESWAR RAO
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
