IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION     CIVIL APPEAL NO.4889 OF 2002

Buddha Tri-Ratna Mission        …Appellant

VERSUS Delhi Development Authority & Ors. …Respondents

O R D E R

1. This  appeal  is  preferred  against  the

judgment  and  order  dated  22nd of  May,  2000

passed by a Division Bench of the High Court

of  Delhi  in  LPA  NO.226  and  CM  Nos.

846-848/2000.  2. We have heard the learned counsel for the

parties  and  also  examined  the  order  under

appeal. While dismissing the appeal in limine,

the Division Bench of the High Court was not

in a position to accept the submission of the

learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  that  the

appellant need not be entirely a charitable

1

institution. It was rightly pointed out by the

Division Bench that the learned Single Judge

of  the  Delhi  High  Court  did  not  rightly

consider the cases in the context of Section

115 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act as

relevant.  As  according  to  them,  the  said

provision was totally different and in this

view of the matter, the LPA was dismissed.

However,  after  dismissing  the  appeal,  the

Division Bench had further issued a notice to

the  Land  and  Development  Officer  and  Delhi

Development  Authority  which was confined to

the aspect of deposit of balance amount. It

appears  from  the  said  order  that  a  sum  of

Rs.10,50,000/-  was  already deposited as per

direction of the High Court and accordingly

there was a stay of cancellation of allotment

of land in favour of the appellant. It was

further directed that till the next date of

hearing, the respondent would not cancel the

allotment  of  the  land  in  favour  of  the

appellant. After the leave was granted on 9th

2

of August, 2002, this Court directed, as an

interim  measure,  the  parties  to  maintain

status quo till the disposal of the appeal.

This  interim  order  of  status  quo  is  still

continuing.  

3. After  hearing  learned  counsel  for  the

parties and after considering the fact that

Rs.10,50,000/-  had  been  deposited  as  per

direction of the Delhi High Court and that the

status quo order was granted by this Court in

the  year  2002,  we  only  direct  that  if  the

appellant deposits the balance amount, if not

already deposited in the High Court, within

two months from the date of supply of a copy

of  this  order,  the  respondents  shall  not

cancel  the  allotment  of  the  land  made  in

favour of the appellant if cancellation of the

allotment  of  the  land  in  favour  of  the

appellant has not already been done by the

Delhi Development Authority and others.  

3

4. With  these  observations,  we  dispose  of

the  appeal.  There  will  be  no  order  as  to

costs.           

…………………………………………J.     [TARUN CHATTERJEE]

New Delhi; …………………………………………J. May 14, 2008    [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

4