http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: JAIN SABHA, NEW DELHI & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       21/11/1996

BENCH: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, K. VENKATASWAMI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T      B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, J.      Leave granted.      This appeal  is preferred by the Union of India through the Secretary,  Ministry of  Urban Development  and the Land and  Development  Officer,  Ministry  of  Urban  Development against the  judgment of  the Delhi  High Court allowing the writ  petition   filed  by   the  respondents  with  certain direction. The  first respondent  is Jain  Sabha, New  Delhi (Sabha) and  the second  ressondent is  the President of the fires respondent-Sabha.      The Sabha  applied to  the Land and Development Officer [L&D.O.] for  allotment of  a plot  of land for locating the school being run by them. The L&D.O. allotted in 1963 a plot of land  admeasuring 1.363  acres a  Rs.5000/- per acre plus the  annual   ground  rent  of  five  percent  thereon.  The allotment could  not, however  be given effect to. The Sabha was representing  repeatedly for  allotment of  the land. In 1967 another  letter of allotment was issued stipulating the very same  rate. Ns  required by  the said letter, the Sabha deposited an  amount of  Rs.7,185/- on  8th July,  1967. The physical  possession  of  the  land  could  not  however  be delivered to  Sabha  on  account  of  existence  of  certain structures which  could not  be vacated  or  removed.  sabha continued to press tor allotment. A question was also raised in the  Parliament on  27th February  1978 in this behalf to which a  reply was given by the government that an alternate plot of  2.15 acres  would be  allotted  to  the  appellant- petitioner. This change in the extent to be allotted was the consequence of  change in  policy. Sometime  after 1967,  it appears, the  relevant rules were amended according to which no school can be established in a plot of land less than two acres in  extent. Be  that as  it  may,  possession  of  the alternate  land   was  also   not  given   to   the   Sabha. Correspondence went on between the parties. On 14th October, 1986, the  L&D.O. informed  the Sabha that an extent of 2.15 acres is  being allotted to the Sabha for running the school s Rupees eight lakhs per acre. Sabha represented against the price proposed  to be  charged. Sn 18th July, 1990, a formal letter of  allotment was  issued in respect of 2.15 acres of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

land. So far ms the rate is concerned a distinction was made therein. With  respect to  the extent  af 1.363 acres [Which was the  area originally allotted or intended to be allotted to tho Sabha] consideration was fixed at Rs.5,000/- per acre but  in   respect  of  the  excess  land  of  o  787  acres, consideration so fixed at Rupees thirty eight lakhs per acre total consideration  so fixed  for the entire extent of 2.15 acres  came  to  Rs.29,90,600/-  [premium]  and  Rs.74,765/- payable as  ground rent  per annum. On 16th August, 1990 the Sabha deposited  a sum  of  Rupees  ten  lakhs  towards  the consideration demanded.      On September  5, 1990  Delhi High  Court delivered  its judgment in Delhi Development Authority V. Lala Amarnath [42 (1993] D.L.T.651]  holding that  in respect  of  Nazul  land allotted on ’no profit no loss’ basis ln accordance with the policy of  the central government to schools  it is not open to the  government to  charge market  rate. relying upon the said judgments  Sabha filed  the writ  petition (from  which this appeal  arises] in the Delhi High Court questioning the demand of considerations Rupees thirty eight lakhs per acres for part  of the land allotted to it, i.e., in respect of an extent of  0.787 acres. The Delhi High Court has allowed the writ petition  directing that  the government shall charge @ Rupees five thousand per acre for the- extent of 1.363 acres [the original  proposed extent] and @ Rupees eight lakhs per acre for  the excess land of C; 787 acres. The Sabha is also made liable  to pay  proportionate  ground  rent  and  other charges in  accordance with  law. The  money already paid by Sabha  is   directed  to  be  adjusted  against  the  amount determined as  payable on  the  above  basis.  It  has  been further directed  that physical possession of the land shall be  handed   over  to   the  Sabha  on  completing  all  the formalities within two months of the judgment.      The case  put forward  by the Sabha and accepted by the High Court  is to the following effect: as far back as 1967, 1.363 acres was allotted to the Sabha @ Rupees five thousand per acre;  as per  the order  of allotment,  the  Sabha  had deposited the sum of Rs.7,185/- on 8th July, 1967; so far as this extent is concerned, the question of rate cannot be re- opened. [Indeed,  the rate  in respect of this extent is not in issue  between the parties.] The dispute pertains only to the rate  chargeable for  the  additional  extent  of  0.737 acres. So  far as  this additional  extent is concerned, the government had agreed to allot the same @ Rupees eight lakhs per acre through its letter dated October 14, 1986 which was unreasonably enhanced  to Rupees thirty eight lakhs per acre under a  subsequent  letter  rated  18th  July,  1990.  This enhancement is  unreasonable and  arbitrary. The  government cannot charge anything more than Rupees eight lakhs for this additional extent.      For a  proper appreciation  of the  controversy, it  is necessary to first determine the correct state of facts.      By its  letter dated  June 3, 1967, the Deputy Land and Development Officer,  New Delhi  informed  Sabha  that  "the President is  pleased to  sanction allotment of another plot of  land   measuring  1.363  acres  in  Edward  Square,  New Delhi....for the  construction of  a building  for the  Jain Happy School  " subject to conditions specified therein. The rate prescribed  was Rupees  five thousand per acre plus the annual ground  rent @  five percent  thereon. It was further stipulated that the land shall be used by the Sabha only for construction of  a building for Jain Happy School and for no other purpose,  that no  religious  instructions  shall,  be imparted and  that "no  citizen shall he denied admission to their school on grounds of religion, race caste, language or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

any of them". The Sabha was intimated that if the conditions mentioned in  the said  letter were acceptable to its it may deposit  the  sum  of  Rs.7,185.75p  and  the  ground  rent. Accordingly, the  Sabha  deposited  the  said  amount  which amounts tc  acceptance  of  the  condition  stipulated.  The possession of  the land  could not,  however be delivered to the Sabha for various reasons. The Sabha was thereupon asked to choose an alternate site. The Sabha was representing for allotment and possession of the land and the matter was kept pending. A  question  was  raised  in  this  behalf  in  the Parliament. The  Minister for Works and Housing replied that possession of  the land could not be delivered to the school on account  of number of built-up structures on the land. At last, on 14th October 1986, the government of India informed the Sabha  that its  request  fur  charging  a  Rupees  five thousand per  acre for  the alternate  site  of  2.15  acres cannot he accepted and that the rate charged shall be Rupees eight lakhs  per acre, i.e., for the entire extent allotted. Evidently,  the  Sabha  made  representations  against  this whereupon the  Government of  India issued the formal letter of allotment  dated 18th  July, 1990. In this letter, it was stated that an extent of 2.15 acres is allotted in DIZ Area, New Delhi for the school, instead of 1.363 acres, subject to several conditions  mentioned therein.  With respect  to the rate charged,  it was  stipulated that  so far as additional land of  0.787 acres  is concerned,  it shall  be charged  s Rupees thirty  eight lakhs  per acre  while for the original extent of  1.363 acres,  the premium  amount already paid by the Sabha  shall  be  treated  as  sufficient.  One  of  the conditions stipulated  that "in  the event of dissolution of the Jain  Happy School,  the land  allotted and  the  assets created thereon will be transferred to an institution having similar aims  and objects  with the  prior approval  of  the Govt. and failing that to Government". Yet another condition was that  "the institution  shall not  increase the  rate of tution fee  without the  prior  sanction  of  the  competent authority and  shall follow  the provisions  of Delhi School Education Act/Rules, 1973 and other instructions issued from to time". It was also stipulated that "the Jain Happy School shall  not  refuse  admission  to  the    residents  of  the locality". This  offer was  stated to be valid for one month and  if   acceptable  to  the  Sabha,  it  was  required  to communicate  its  acceptance  and  remit  the  consideration amount. Pursuant  to this  letter, the  Sabha wrote  to  the L&D.O. on 17th August, 1996 as follows:      "No.JAS/Land/1      Dated 17.8.1990      The  Land  &  Development  Officer,      Government of  India, Nirman Bhavan      New Delhi-1      Sub:- Allotment  of land  for  Jain      Happy School      Ref:-    Your     letter     No.LV-      4(162)/90/300 dt.18.7.1990.      Dear Sir,      With reference  to your above cited      letter, which was received by us on      23.7.1990 and  in  continuation  to      ourletter   of   even   No.   dated      13.8.90, we  are enclosing herewith      a Pay  Order No.  001670 for  dated      16.8.90 for  Rs.10 lakhs on Central      Bank of  India,  Gole  Market,  New      Delhi-1 as  a part  payment for the      above subjected land.      Since  the  fee  structure  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

    school is  such that it runs on ’No      Profit &  no loss’  basis and since      the amount  to be deposited is very      huge, it  is not  possible for  the      Sabha to deposit full amount a time      and hence  part  payment  is  being      made, which may kindly he accepted.      In  view  of  the  above,  you  are      requested to  please allow  us more      time to make the balance payment.      Thanking you,            Yours faithfully,                   Sd/-             (Shri Pal Jain)         Hony.General Secretary"      It is  clear from  the letter  that Sabha  accepted the rate specified  in the allotment letter dated July 18, 1990, viz., rate  of Rupees  thirty eight  lakhs per  acre for the additional extent of 0.787 acres and the rate of Rupees five thousand per  acre for  the initial  extent of 1.363 acres - apart from the other conditions of allotment - and deposited a sum  of Rupees  ten lakhs  towards the total consideration payable as  per the said allotment letter. It also requested for further  time to  deposit the balance amount. Within two months, however, Sabha resiled from this position seeking to take advantage of a decision of the Delhi High Court in Lala Amarnath. On  26th October,  1990,  the  Sabha  addressed  a letter referring  to the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Lala Amarnath  reguesting that  as per the said judgment, it should not  be charged  at a  rate of more than Rupees eight lakhs for the additional extent of 0.787 acres, and that the amount already paid by it should be adjusted accordingly and the excess  amount refunded  to it.  Pausing  here,  we  may mention that the said judgment of the Delhi High Court deals with a  different situation  under a  policy said  to be  in force at  the time  of allotment  in that case. The terms of allotment and  all the  material facts are wholly different. We do no see any relevance of the said decision to the facts of this  case. Be  that as  it mays when its request was not acceded to  the Sabha  filed the  writ petition  from, which this appeal arises.      It is  not brought to our notice that allotment of land to a  school by  the Government of India or by the L&D.O. is governed by  any statute  or statutory powers. The Sabha had no right to allotment. It is true that an allotment was made of 1.363  acres in  the year 1967 and Sabha had remitted the consideration of  Rs.7,185.75p in  that year itself. But for one or the other reason, possession of the land could not be delivered and no steps were taken by the Sabha thereafter to enforce its claim. About twenty years later , i.e. s on 14th October, 1936,  2.15 acres  was proposed to be allotted at a uniform rate  of rupees eight lakhs per acre. This offer was later revised  in the  respondents’ letter  dated 18th July, 1999, as  stated above.  The Sabha  accepted  the  same  and deposited  the   sum  of   Rupees  ten  lakhs  towards  part consideration. It  only changed  its stance two months later when it came to know of the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Lala Amarnath and on that basis demanded that the rate to be charged  for the additional land should be @ Rupees eight lakhs per  acre only and not a Rupees thirty eight lakhs per acre. We  have pointed  out that the said judgment was in no way relevant to the facts of this case and, therefore, it is clear that  the reversal  of its  stand  by  the  Sabha  was neither justified  as a  fact nor  justified  in  law.  Even assuming that the said judgment was relevant in some manner,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

the Sabha could only request for revision of price but could not claim such revision as a matter of right, in view of its acceptance of  the terms  of letter  of allotment dated July 18, 1990.  It is  not -  and it  cannot be - the case of the Sabha that its acceptance aforesaid is vitiated by the later judgment of the High Court between third parties and that it is not  bound by   the  said acceptance.  If it  takes  that stand, the  result would be that the very offer contained in the letter  dated July  18, 1990 would lapse; there would be no allotment  at all  in favour  of the  Sabha. This  is the factual position.  Now,  coming  to  the  legal  aspect,  it appears highly doubtful whether the writ petition itself was maintainable but  we do  not wish  to pursue  this  line  of enquiry for  the reason that no such objection seems to have been raised  before or  considered by  the  High  Court  The judgment of  the High  Court does  not  refer  to  any  such objection nor does it deal with it.  Sri  Singhvi, learned  counsel for  the appellants  however submits that  the Sabha  is running a school catering to the students from  the poor  and middle  classes, that  it is  a purely charitable  and genuine  charitable organisation  and that in  view of its repeated requests for allotment of land over more  than last  thirty years, its request for, and its need for land, should be sympathetically considered. Counsel also submits  that the  Subha is  in no  position to pay the full consideration  demanded by  the  Government.  He  also submits that  the Sabha  is anxious  to help  supplement the Government’s  efforts   and  obligation  to  provide  school education and  hence, it should not be asked to pay the said revised price  for the  additional land  of 0.787 acres. Sri Singhvi submitted that many other schools similarly situated have been allotted land at very low prices and that there is no reason  for not  extending  the  same  treatment  to  the appellants. The  question is  the  proper  direction  to  be madein the  matter   consistent with laws justice and public interest. In  our opinion,  the proper  course  in  all  the circumstances of  the case  is  to  leave  it  open  to  the respondents  to  approach  the  appellants  with  the  above request. It  is open  to the  respondents to  place all  the relevant  facts   Before  the   appellants  and  ask  for  a reconsideration of  the matter. It is for the Union of India and the  L.&D.O. to  consider whether their orders contained in the allotment letter dated 18th July, 1990 call for any revision.  The   appeal  is   disposed  of  with  the  above direction. The judgment of the High Court is set aside. No costs.      It is  directed that  for a  period of  six months from today, status quo as on today shall continue. Before parting with this  case, we  think it appropriate to observe that it is high  time  the  government  reviews  the  entire  policy relating  to   allotment  of   land  to  schools  and  other charitable  institutions. Where the public property is being given  to  such  institutions  practically  free,  stringent conditions have  to be  attached with respect to the user of the  land   and  the   manner  in  which  schools  or  other institutions  established   thereon  shall   function.   The conditions imposed should be consistent with public interest and should always stipulate that in case of violation of any of those  conditions, the  land  shall  be  resumed  by  the government. Not  only such  conditions should  be stipulated but constant  monitoring should be done to ensure that those conditions are  being observed  in practice. While we cannot say  anything   about  the  particular  school  run  by  the respondents it  is common knowledge that some of the schools are being  run on  totally commercial  lines.  Huge  amounts

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

being charged  by way of donations and fees. The question is whether there  is any  justification for  allotting land  at throw-away prices  to such  institutions. The  allotment  of land belonging  to the  people at  practically no  price  is meant for  serving  the  public  interest,  i.e.  spread  of education or  other charitable  purposes; lt is not meant to enable the allottees to make money or profiteer with the aid of public  property. We  are sure  that the government would take necessary  measures in  this behalf in the light of the observations contained herein.