http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5944 of 2007

PETITIONER: Mount Carmel School Society

RESPONDENT: D.D.A.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/12/2007

BENCH: S.B. Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of SLP (C) No.3251 of 2006)

S.B. Sinha, J.  

1.      Leave granted. 2.      This appeal is directed against a judgment and order of a Division  Bench of Delhi High Court dated 7.9.2005 passed in LPA No.404 of 2003.   3.      Appellant is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act.   It runs an educational institution.  It applied for allotment of four acres of  land for running a senior secondary school before the Delhi Development  Authority.  The Institutional Allotment Committee which was constituted by  the Authority, made recommendations for allotment of four acres of land.   Indisputably the competent authority of the DDA took a policy decision only  to allot two acres of land.

4.      Several writ petitions were filed which by reason of the impugned  judgment have been dismissed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.   Before embarking on the questions raised before us, we may place on record  that except the present appeal, other appeals were heard and dismissed by a  Division Bench of this Court (Coram \026 Hon. B.P. Singh and P.K.  Balasubramanyam, JJ).  The said order, however, is not a reasoned one.

5.      Mr. K.K. Rai, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of appellant,  submitted that the factual scenario obtaining in the present appeal is different  from the others, inasmuch as recommendations of allotment of four acres of  land were made both in its favour as also in favour of one Shri  Venkateshwara Educational Society; but whereas in the case of the latter  society four acres of land was directed to be allotted; the appellant was  denied of a similar grant.   

       The High Court, learned counsel argued, misdirected itself in passing  the impugned judgment in so far as it failed to take into consideration that  the said Shri Venkateshwara Educational Society was not a necessary party  in the writ petition as no relief was claimed against it, inasmuch as if the writ  petition were to be allowed, the said society would not have suffered any  prejudice.

6.      Mr. V.B. Saharya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the  respondent, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment.

7.      The question which arose for consideration before the High Court was  as to whether the Delhi Master Plan having provided for allotment of four  acres of land for running of a secondary school, the Delhi Development  Authority could take a policy decision of allotment only  of two acres of  land.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

8.      We have noticed hereinbefore that a large number of societies applied  for allotment of land for setting up senior secondary schools.  A  recommendation had been made in favour of the apellant by the Institutional  Allotment Committee on or about 23.10.1998.  Indisputably, similar  recommendations had been made in favour of other societies as well,  including the said Shri Venkateshwara Educational Society.   Recommendations of the Committee, however, do not appear to have been  approved by the authority.  It furthermore appears that the appellant was  asked to send its latest bank balance certificate and/or financial status.   

9.      The Lt. Governor, who is Chairman of the Society, had also asked for  certain clarifications pertaining to constructions of the school building.  On  or about 9.3.2000, a provisional allotment was made but, allegedly, the  appellant society failed to furnish an undertaking within the period stipulated  therefor.

10.     Indisputably, the Vice Chairman of the Delhi Development Authority  made recommendations for allotment of only two acres of land in favour of  the appellant.  Shri Venkateshwara Educational Society, however, was  allotted a land measuring four acres of land way back on 25.8.1999. 11.     The policy decision of the Authority which was impugned in the writ  petition was taken in October 1999.  It has not been shown before us that  any allotment has been made in favour of any society allotting land having  an area of four acres, after October 1999. 12.     We may furthermore notice that the plea of discrimination raised in  the writ petition was absolutely vague as it was merely averred : \023The petitioner also wrote to Respondent No.1 on  24.03.2000 requesting for allotment of 1.6 hectares  of land at the prevailing rate of Rs.30 lakhs per  acre in 1996 when the application for land was  made and other similarly situated institutions were  allotted land...\024

13.     Grounds taken in the writ petition in this behalf also did not specify  that the appellant had been discriminated against, vis-‘-vis the said Shri  Venkateshwara  Education Society or any other allottee.  Details of the grant  in favour of the said society was not furnished.  In absence of any specific  contention having been raised, it was not possible for the respondent to  furnish any reply thereto. 14.     No argument also appears to have been advanced in this behalf before  the learned Single Judge.  The memo of appeal of the appellant was not  supported by any affidavit affirmed either by one of its authorized  representatives who was present in court or by the advocate appearing on its  behalf, stating that the contention in regard to the discriminatory treatment  was raised before the learned Single Judge but was not dealt with.   15.     A Judge\022s record, as is well known, must be accepted as correct.   Appellant, thus, could have filed an application for review before the learned  Single Judge.  The same was not done. 16.     We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court cannot be said to  have committed any error in passing the impugned judgment.   17.     A feeble attempt was made by Mr. Rai to contend that the Central  Government also was of the opinion that the area to be allotted for senior  secondary school cannot be reduced.  The High Court, in this regard held : \023Equally importantly, the learned Single Judge has  noted that the official records of the Central  Government dealing with the communications of  DDA were produced before him. The nothings in  the file, which were apparently perused by the  learned Single Judge, show that the  recommendations of DDA were considered by the  Central Government and thereafter finally  approved for implementation. In view of this  factual position, we are quite satisfied that the land

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

rates were determined by the Central Government  and were not fixed by DDA. There was no  excessive delegation of power or responsibility on  the part of the Central Government and so this  contention must be rejected.\024

       In view of the said findings of the High Court which, as noticed  hereinbefore, have been accepted by this Court, we are not inclined to take a  different view therefrom.  

18.     For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in this appeal.  It is  dismissed accordingly with costs.  Counsel\022s fee assessed at Rs.25,000/-  (Rupees twenty five thousand only).