Little Angles Public School Society And ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 21 August, 1998

[Cites 9, Cited by 3]

Delhi High Court

Little Angles Public School Society And ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 21 August, 1998

Equivalent citations: 75(1998)DLT521

1. The Little Angels Public School Society is the writ petitioner. The petitioner prays for quashing the demand made by the Delhi Development Authority (the second respondent) in its letter dated 6.11.1991. It is stated that the petitioner is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The petitioner has to own a building for the purpose of running a school for imparting education as envisaged by the object of the Society. The petitioner applied to Delhi Development Authority (the second respondent) for allotment of a plot of land.

2. On 28.3.1988 the Deputy Director, Directorate of Education, Delhi, in response to the petitioner's letter it is stated that the case of the petitioner had been sponsored and recommendations had been made to the second respondent. The petitioner gave an undertaking in the following terms:

It is undertaken on behalf of the Society that Society will be willing to pay premium Rs. 8 lacs per acre plus annual ground rent thereon as prescribed by the Government.

3. By letter dated 28.10.1988 the Delhi Development Authority wrote to the petitioner in the following terms:

With reference to your letter No. dated on the above subject, I am directed to inform you that the rates for allotment of institutional land have since been revised by the Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development. The revised rates for South Delhi/West Delhi/North Delhi/East Delhi is Rs. 2,37,5000/- per acre.

You are therefore, advised to augment the funds to the tune of Rs. 19,00,000/- and submit a Bank certificate to this effect within 15 days of the date of issue of this letter to enable this office to process the case.

4. By a letter dated 1.5.1989 the Deputy Director (Institutional) wrote to the petitioner stating that he has decided to allot on perpetual lease hold basis a plot of land measuring two acres (50% for school building and 50% for play ground) for running Middle School at Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. The petitioner was; required to communicate acceptance and deposit a sum of Rs. 24,34,375/- towards the cost of land and Rs. 59375 /- towards the ground rent for the period of one year and Rs. 1/- p.a. as nominal ground rent for the play ground area. The letter is Armexure-D. By a letter dated 3.10.1989 the third respondent, Deputy Director, wrote to the petitioner stating that actual area of land was handed over to the petitioner was 2.14 acres (1.07 acre for school and 1.07 acres for play ground) and the petitioner should pay an additional amount of Rs. 1,70,408/-. This letter is annexed with the petition as Annexure-E. The petitioner had paid this amount also.

5. On 3.11.1989, (Annexure-F) the second respondent issued No Objection Certificate for getting the plan sanctioned.

6. The DDA by letter dated 6.11.1991 informed the petitioner that the Government of India had fixed the rates of land for the period from 1.4.1989 to 31.3.1991. What was earlier fixed was provisional. Taking into account the amount already paid the balance payable was Rs. 9,60,725/-. On 26.11.1991, the petitioner wrote to the Delhi Development Authority requesting it to give the basis on which how the initial cost was fixed and revised cost had been worked out. There was no response and therefore, the petitioner had to file this writ petition.

7. The case of the petitioner is that the cost was fixed on no profit no loss basis because the allotment was for the purpose of running an educational institution. The DDA or the Ministry of Urban Development (UO1) cannot unilaterally revise the cost. The petitioner would refer to the affidavit filed by the Under Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development in Anand Education Society v. DDA (CW No. 2653/88) wherein according to the petitioner, it was stated by the Union of India that no profit no loss rates were adopted for institutional allotment. The petitioner has referred to Section 6 of the Delhi Development Authority Act, 1957 and the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 to show that the fixation of cost on no profit no loss was deliberately done for the allotment of land to social, cultural, religious and educational institutions which are registered Societies under no profit making organisation. According to the petitioner, the revision of cost by the DDA was not at all authorised. It was arbitrary and it was not warranted.

8. On 28.7.1992 the DDA filed the reply. It is stated in the reply that there was no commitment to the petitioner and it was specifically stated in the allotment letter that the price for the relevant year had not been fixed by the Central Government and the petitioner was called upon to give an undertaking that it would pay the balance price of the premium after the same was fixed by the Government and as and when demanded by the DDA. The DDA had to make the demand because the Government had revised the rates. According to the DDA, the cost fixed by the Government is far below the market rates. The present policy of the Government is to allot land to private institutions by charging premium of land after determining the various factors but on no profit no loss basis. 50% of the amount was for the school building and 50% of the land allotted was meant for the use of play ground and no premium is charged. A nominal ground rent of Rs. 1/- p.a. is charged. After the revision the petitioner was called upon to deposit further amount only with reference to the land for the building and for the land for play ground no charges are levied. The petitioner is a private institution and it cannot compare itself with the Government departments. The policy of the Government relating to the allotment of land to private institution had been changed and therefore the petitioner cannot make any claim as a matter of right that the Government cannot revise the rates. In any event, no assurance was given to the petitioner as stated by the petitioner. The DDA prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.

9. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply on 1.8.1992. On 19.11.1993, the Union of India filed the counter affidavit. The counter affidavit is filed by the Under Secretary/Ministry of Urban Development. The respondents have referred to the rules framed for the year 1990-91 and they had stated that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief. The Government had shown concession to the institution and the fixation of land as a part of socio economic act of the Government and the grounds raised by the petitioner are not at all sustainable in law.

The first respondent had filed a notification dated 5.9,1991 issued by the government wherein schedule of market rates of land in Delhi had been fixed by the Union of India and according to the notification the rates are effective from 1.4.1989 to 31.3.1991.

CW. No. 3792/91

10. Ritnand Balved Education Foundation (Regd.) has filed the above writ petition for quashing the letter dated 29.10.1991 issued by the DDA demanding further sum of Rs. 11,39,055/-.

11. The facts can tersely stated in the following terms. The petitioner School applied for allotment of land for the purpose of running a school. On 11.10,1989 the Delhi Development Authority as per the recommendations made by the Ministry of Urban Development allotted two acres of land at Malviya Nagar Extension, New Delhi. 50% of the land was meant for construction of the school building while the remaining 50% was for play ground. The school was directed to pay at the rate of Rs. 28.50 lacs per acre. The petitioner was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 29,21,251 /- on account of cost of the land and Rs. 7,11,250/- on account of ground rent. Some other conditions were imposed by the DDA. In para 5A, it is stated the cost of land as demanded is provisional. The Society was to give an undertaking on Rs. 2/- stamp paper duly attested by the First Class Magistrate/Notary Public to the effect that the difference in cost of land as and when decided by the Government of India and the DDA shall be payable by the Society. As per this, the Society gave an undertaking in an affidavit stating "that I on behalf of the Society do undertake that if there has been any price revisions in the cost of land, the Society will pay/ get the difference to/from Government of India/DDA." The affidavit is dated 27.10.1983. It was sworn to by Mr. Anand Chauhan, Hony. General Secretary of the petitioner Society.

12. On 29.10.1991, the DDA wrote to the petitioner stating that the Government of India had now fixed the rates for the period from 1.4.1989 to 31.3.1991 and the land rate had been was fixed at Rs. 39 lacs per acre. The petitioner was directed to pay difference of Rs. 11,39,055/-. The details are as under:

1.

Premium of land for the are measuring 4272.15 sq.mt.

Rs.

4,11,6986/-

2. G.R. for one year @ 2 1/2% p.a Rs.

10,2925/-

3. Licence fee of play ground for one year @ Rs. 1,000/- per acre per annum.

Rs.

1,064/-

4. Total = Rs.

4,22,0975/-

5. Less already paid.

Rs.

3,08,1920/-

6. Now payable = Rs.

11,39,055/-

14. Challenging this, the writ petition has been filed. The same ground taken in CW No. 3775/91 is raised.

CW No. 3808/91 :

15. St. Tulsi Memorial Educational Society has filed the above writ petition praying for quashing the demand letter dated 29.10.1991. The facts necessary for deciding the point can be stated tersely in the following terms. The petitioner Society decided to open a school at Delhi and applied to the DDA for allotment of land. The case of the petitioner was sponsored by the Directorate of Education, Delhi State. After the petitioner complied with the formalities, on 4.5.1990 the DDA wrote to the petitioner stating that it had been decided to allot the land on perpetual lease hold basis, measuring 1.5 acres (.75 acre for school building and .075 acre for play ground) for running Middle School at Vikaspuri, Delhi, on usual terms and conditions. In para 6 of letter dated 4.5.1990 it is stated "that the cost of land as demanded is provisional. The Society shall give an undertaking on Rs. 2/- stamp paper duly attested from 1st Class Magistrate/Notary Public to the effect that the difference as cost of land as and when decided by the Government of India and DDA shall be payable by the Society".

16. On 29.10.1991, the DDA wrote to the petitioner stating that the Government of India had now fixed the rates for the period from 1.4.1989 to 31.3.1991 and the land rate was fixed at Rs. 32.50 lacs per acre. The petitioner was directed to pay the difference amount of Rs. 6,94,798/-. The details are as under:

1.

Premium of land for the are measuring 3061.17 sq.mt. @ Rs. 32.50 lac. per acre.

Rs. 24,58,316/-

2. G.R. for one year @ 2 1/2% p.a. Rs. 61,458/-

3. Licence fee of play ground for one year @ Rs.1000/- per acre per annum.3061 .17 sq. mtr.

Rs. 757/-

4. Total = Rs.25,20,531/-

5. Less already paid.

Rs.18,25,823/-

6. Now payable = Rs. 6,94,798/-

17. Challenging this the writ petition has been filed. The ground of challenge is the same as in CW No. 3775/91 and it is not necessary to repeat the same.

C.W. No. 3952/91:

18. Garden School Education Society has filed the writ petition challenging the demand raised by the DDA in its letter dated 29.10.1991. Here also the facts could be stated shortly in the following terms. The aims of the petitioner are to provide best education and to produce well informed and self assured young men and women. The petitioner Society decided to open a school at Delhi and applied to the DDA for allotment of land. The case of the petitioner was sponsored by the Directorate of Education, Delhi State. After the petitioner complied with the formalities, on 16.12.1988 the DDA wrote to the petitioner stating that the Government of India had revised the rates for Delhi at Rs. 28.50 lacs, per acre and the petitioner should augment the funds to the tune of Rs. 7 lacs and submit a bank certificate to this effect within 15 days of the date of issue of the letter to enable the DDA to process the case.

19. By letter dated 19.6.1989 the Deputy Director Institutional wrote to the petitioner stating that it had been decided to allot, on perpetual lease hold basis, a plot of land measuring 800 sq. mtrs. for running a Nursery School building at Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. It is stated in the letter that cost of land was provisional and the petitioner should give an undertaking that it would pay difference as and when demanded by the DDA. The petitioner was directed to communicate to the acceptance and the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,63,384/- on account of cost of land and Rs. 14,085/- on account of ground rent for a period of one year @ Rs. 2/- and half percent on the premium amount. The petitioner made the deposit. The possession of the land was given to the petitioner on 8.11.1989. The petitioner would appear to have made a request on 21.3.1991 for the issuance of No Objection Certificate. On 11.4.1991 the DDA issued a No Objection Certificate for getting the plan sanctioned.

20. On 29.10.1991, the DDA wrote to the petitioner stating that the Government of India had now fixed the rates for the period from 1.4.1989 to31.3.1991 and the land rates was fixed at Rs. 39 lacs per acre. The petitioner was directed to pay difference amount of Rs. 2,27,961 /-. The details are as under:

1.

Premium of land for the are measuring 815.40 sq. mts. @ Rs. 39/-lacs per acre.

Rs. 7,85,785/-

2. G.R. for one year @ 2 1/2% p.a. Rs. 19,645/-

3. Licence fee of play ground Rs. --

4. Total = Rs. 8,05,430/-

5. Less already paid.

Rs. 5,55,469/-

6. Net payable Rs. 2,27, 961/-

21. Challenging this, the writ petition was presented in this Court on 13.11.1991. The point raised is the same as in CW No. 3775 of 1991 and it is not necessary to repeat the ground of challenge. The petitioner had filed rejoinder reiterating the points urged in the writ petition.

CW No.104/92

22. St. George's Education Society has filed the above writ petition challenging the demand made by the DDA in his letter dated 5 12.1991 for a sum of Rs. 11,31,111 /-. The facts necessary for the deciding the point could be staled shortly as under: On 12.4.1990, the DDA has made an allotment of land measuring 2.10 acres to the petitioner, 50% of the land for the school building and other 50% for play ground. The petitioner was directed to communicate its acceptance and also deposit a sum of Rs. 30,67,314/- towards cost of land and Rs. 74,813 /- on account of ground rent for the period of one year and Rs. 1/- p.a. as nominal ground rent for the play ground. The petitioner deposit the sum of Rs, 30,67,314/-,

23. By letter dated 5.12.1991 the DDA sent a communication to the petitioner stating that the Government of India had revised the rate of land from 1.4.1989 to 31.3.1991 and the land rate was fixed at Rs. 39 lacs per acre. The petitioner was directed to pay the difference of Rs.11,31,111/-. The details are as under :

1.

Premium of land for the are measuring 1.05 acres @ Rs. 39 lac per acre.

Rs. 40,95,000/-

2. G.R. for one year @ 2Vi% p.a. Rs. 1,02,375/-

3. Licence fee of play ground for one year @ Rs. 1,000/- per acre per annum.

Rs. 1,050/-

4. Total = Rs. 41,98,425/-

5. Less already paid.

Rs. 30,67314/-

6. Now payable = Rs. 11,31,111/-

24. Challenging this the writ petition was presented on 7.2.1992. The same point raised in CW No. 3775/91 is urged in this writ petition.

C.W. No. 1366/92;

25. Sachdeva Educational Society has filed the writ petition seeking to quash the demand letter dated 9.10.1991 and for other reliefs. The case of the petitioner is in the following terms: The petitioner made an application to the respondent for allotment of land in Paschim Vihar for running a Primary/Middle School. The Director of Education by letter dated 7.10.1987 recommended the case of the petitioner for allotment. On 27.3.1991 the DDA allotted two acres of land; (one acre for school building and one acre for play ground) for running a school in Rajouri Garden, 8 Area. The provisional premium was fixed at Rs.23.75 lacs per acre with annual ground rent at the rate of 21% per annum on the total premium. Another one acre of playground the rent was fixed at Rs. 1/- per annum. On 9.4.1991, the petitioner society deposited a sum of Rs. 9 lacs. On 23.4.1991 further sum of Rs. 2 lacs was deposited by the petitioner. On 22.4.1991, the petitioner made a representation to the Lt. Governor praying for a direction to the DDA to permit the petitioner to pay the balance in instalment. On 23rd April, 1991, the petitioner wrote to the Deputy Director DDA stating that the local people informed the petitioner that the land allotted to them belonged to the Government of India and therefore wanted the DDA to verify the same. The petitioner also wanted extension of time for depositing the amount. On 10.6.1991 (Annexure P-5) wrote to the petitioner extending the time for paying 50% by 31.5.1991 and the entire balance by 30,6.1991 with interest @ 18% per annum. The DDA however stated that since 50% has been paid by the petitioner the balance of Rs. 12,34,376/- should be paid by 30.6.1991.

26. On 9.10.1991 the DDA wrote to the petitioner stating that the Government of India had revised the rate for the land for the period from 1.4.1989 to 31.3.1991 @ 32.50 lacs per acre the DDA demanded balance of Rs -21,32,000/-. On 11.10.1991 the petitioner again wrote to the respondent for extension of time. On 14.10.1991, the petitioner again wrote to the DDA stating that the Lt. Governor had called for the file and the same should be sent to the Lt. Governor. The petitioner requested that the till the matter is decided by the Lt. Governor the action proposed in letter dated 9.10.1991 may be kept in abeyance. According to the petitioner it had paid Rs. 14 lacs and not Rs. 12 lacs as mentioned by the DDA. Again on 12.11.1991 the petitioner wrote to the DDA making the same request. On 19.12.1991 the petitioner wrote too the DDA making a request that the petitioner may be permitted to pay the balance amount of Rs. 16 lacs in half yearly installments and the possession of the land may be handed over to the petitioner. By a letter dated 17.12.1991 the DDA wrote to the petitioner stating that the balance amount of Rs. 21/32,250/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the due dates should be paid by 31.12.1991 failing which action will be taken as per the rules.

27. On 19.12.1991 the petitioner again made a request to the Lt. Governor for payment of the amount in half yearly instalments. On 30.12.1991 the petitioner wrote to the DDA for the payment of the cost in easy instalments. On 10.3.1992 the joint Director (Instl.) wrote to the petitioner informing it that the Lt. Governor had rejected the request made by the petitioner and the petitioner should pay the entire balance premium of Rs. 19,52,250/- with interest @ 18% per annum by 31.3.1992.

28. On 14.3.1992 the petitioner Society wrote to the DDA repeating the request to fix the rate of land it Rs. 9.50 lacs per acre. Thereafter the petitioner had filed the writ petition challenging the demand on the same grounds mentioned in CW 3775 / 91.

CW No. 1817/92:

29. Crescent Public School Society has filed the writ petition seeking to quash the demand letter dated 13.8.1991 and for other reliefs. The case of the petitioner could be related in the following terms:

30. The Directorate of Education sponsored the case of the petitioner by letter dated 14.3.1989. The petitioner School obtained permission under Rule 44 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973. By letter dated 23.4.1991 the DDA allotted the land measuring 6199.00 sq. mtrs. (2324.63 for building portion and 3874.37 sq. mtrs for play ground) for running a Middle School adjacent to the Railway Colony Society in Pitampura on usual terms/conditions. The rate fixed was Rs. 19 lacs per acre with annual ground rent Rs. 1/- per acre for School building and 0.92 acre for play ground @ Rs. 19 lacs per acre, for running a school at Pitampura Delhi. The provisional premium was fixed at Rs. 19 lacs per acre with annual ground rent at the rate of and half per cent on the total premium.

31. The petitioner was informed that the rate fixed was provisional and the society should give an undertaking as in other cases. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.11,18,700/-. The petitioner gave an undertaking on 24.04.1991. The relevant part of the undertaking reads as under under:

Now, therefore, the allottee hereby agrees and undertakes to pay such amounts of money as are demanded by the Delhi Development Authority Lessor (President of India) on the basis of the registered rates as determined by the Central Government under Rules of the Delhi Development (Developed Nazul Land) Rule, 1981. The allottee further undertakes that in case of default in payment by the allottee of the revised amount as demanded by the Delhi Development Authority/ Lessor (President of India) on the basis of rates determined by the Central Government under Rule -5 referred to above, the Lessor Delhi Development Authority shall be at liberty to recover the same as arrears of land revenue or/and cancel the allotment without any compensation or any other amount whatsoever to the allottee.

The petitioner was given possession.

32. On 13.8.1991, the DDA wrote to the petitioner stating that the Government of India had now revised the ratio of middle school is 50% for school building and 50% for the play ground. The DDA has demanded the balance of Rs. 3,72,896/- and the detail of which is as under :

1.

Premium of land for the ate measuring 3099.50 sq.mt.

Rs. 14,55,215/-

2. G.R. for one year @ two and half per cent per annum.

Rs. 36,380/-

3. Licence fee of play ground of 3099.50 sq.mtrs.

Rs. 1/-

4. Total = Rs. 14,91,596/-

5. Less already paid.

Rs. 11,18,700/-

6. Now payable = Rs. 3,72,896/-

33. Challenging this, the writ petition was presented on 11.5.1992 contesting the same points urged in CW No. 3775/91.

CW No. 1818/92:

34. M.M. School Society has filed the writ petition seeking to quash .the demand letter dated 7.4.1992 and for other reliefs. The case of the petitioner is in the following terms. The Directorate of Education sponsored the case of the petitioner by letter dated 13.3.1987. The petitioner School obtained permission under Rule 44 of the rules framed under the Delhi School Education Act, 1973. By letter dated 11.5.1989 the DDA allotted me land measuring 1.92 acres, one acre for School building and 0.92 acre for play ground @ Rs. 19 lacs per acre, for running a school at Pitampura Delhi. The provisional premium was fixed at Rs. 19 lacs per acre with annual ground rent at the rate of two and half per cent per annum on the total premium.

35. The petitioner was informed that the rate fixed was provisional and the Society should give undertaking as in other cases. Para 5 of the letter reads as under:

The cost of land as demanded is provisional and therefore, the Society shall give an undertaking on Rs. 2/- stamp paper duly attested from 1st Class Magistrate/Notary Public to the effect that the difference of cost of land at the rates as may be decided by the Government of India/DDA will be paid by them on demand.

36. The petitioner had paid a sum of Rs. 10 lacs on 25.5.1989 and Rs. 9 lacs on 29.12.1989. In the writ petition though the petition would admit that it had paid the money as demanded, would not refer to the undertaking. The petitioner has proceeded on the basis that it has not given any undertaking. In the reply the DDA has stated that the petitioner had given an undertaking and that factual position is not denied by the petitioner in its rejoinder. Therefore, the fact that the petitioner had given an undertaking cannot be disputed by the petitioner. On 30.10.1990 the petitioner was put in possession of the land. The petitioner was requested the DDA to issue No Objection Certificate for construction of building. The petitioner came to know that the Government had changed the policy and has decided that 50% of the allotted land is for the school building and other 50% Was for the play ground against the earlier ratio 40% for school building and 60% for play ground.

37. On 7.4.1992, the DDA wrote to the petitioner stating that the Government of India had fixed the rates for the period from 1.4.1989 to 31.3.1991 and the land rates was fixed at Rs.26 lacs per acre. The petitioner was directed to make this difference of Rs. 04,58,178/- The details are as under:

1.

Premium of land for the are measuring 0.865 sq.mts. @ Rs.26 lacs per acre.

Rs. 22,49,000/-

2. G.R. for one year Rs. two and half per cent per annumn.

Rs. 56,295/-

3. Licence fee of play ground for one year Rs. 1,000/- per acre per annum.

Rs. 865/-

4. Total = Rs. 23,06,190/-

5. Less already paid.

Rs.18,48,012/-

6. Now payable = Rs. 04,58,178/-

38. Challenging this, the writ petition has been filed. The point raised is the same as in CW No. 3775/91.

CW No 1826/92 and CW No. 4000/92:

39. Bal Shekshik Avam Bodhik Vikas Samiti has filed the writ petition for quashing the fixation of cost of land from Rs. 19 lacs per acre to Rs. 26 lacs per acre. The petitioner did not have a building of its own and, therefore, applied for the allotment of a plot for establishing a new school from Class I to VIII (without aid) in Sarswati Vihar Area, District North, Delhi. The Director of Education, Delhi Administration wrote to the petitioner on 1.3.1988 stating that the case of the petitioner was sponsored to Delhi Development Authority. The petitioner obtained the essentiality certificate on 18.2.1988. The petitioner was willing to pay a premium @ Rs. 8 lacs per acre and the petitioner gave an undertaking on 1.3.1988. On 4.4.1991 the petitioner was informed by the DDA that the DDA had decided to allot land measuring 2000 sq. mtrs. for school and 3726.15 sq. mtrs for playground @ Rs. 19 lacs per acre with annual ground rent @ two and half per cent per annum of the total premium. The petitioner was informed that the premium fixed was only provisional and the Society should give undertaking as mentioned in para 6 of the letter that it would pay the balance as may be demanded by the DDA on the basis of the rates determined by the Central Government. The petitioner deposited Rs. 9,38,967/-towards cost of land and Rs.23,475/- towards the ground rent and Rs. 1/- ground rent. The petitioner gave an undertaking on 13.5.1991 agreeing to pay the demand that might be made on the basis of the rate that may be determined by the Central Government. The relevant part of the undertaking reads as under:

Now, therefore, the allottee hereby agrees and undertakes to pay such amounts of money as are demanded by the Delhi Development Authority/Lessor (President of India) on the basis of the revised rates as determined by the Central government under Rule-5 of the Delhi Development Authority (Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981. The allottee further undertakes that in case of default in payment by the allottee of the revised amount as demanded by the (President of India) Lessor Delhi Development Authority on the basis of rate: determined by the Central Government Rule -5 referred to above, the Lessor Delhi Development Authority shall be at liberty to recover the same as arrears of land revenue or/and cancel the allotment without any compensation or any other amount whatsoever to the allottee.

40. The possession letter was issued on 4.9.1991 but actual possession was not given. Therefore, the petitioner was forced to file CW No. 3293/91. On 4.11.1991 this Court passed the following orders:

4.11.1991 C.W. No. 3293/91 and CM 5511/91:

The matter had been passed over earlier on the request of Mr. V.K. Seth who appeared for the first respondent when both the officers as mentioned in the last order were also present. Mr. Seth had then requested for short adjournment. We, however, found that records have not been brought to the Court as per our orders. However, we acceded to the request only to the extent to pass over the matter.

In this case the petitioner, which is a Society duly registered under the Societies Registration Act, was allotted certain land as per rules and the policy existing at the relevant time. On 13 May, 1991 the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 9,62,443/- as demanded by the first respondent for allotment of land for construction of a Middle School. It is stated that the petitioner also gave the requisite undertaking as required by the first respondent. On 4 Sept., 1991 the first respondent wrote a letter to the petitioner stating that possession be taken of the allotted land from the Project Planner (Rohini), Delhi, on any working day between 3.p.m. to 5 p.m. except on Wednesday. The petitioner, on 30th September, 1991, wrote to the first respondent that in spite of as many as eight visits to the officer concerned possession has not so far been given. Since no reason was received, the petitioner filed this petition. We see no justification as to why the possession of the plot should not have been handed over to the petitioner. We may record, however, that earlier Mr. Seth has mentioned that there is some change in norms in July, 1991 on account of which perhaps possession was not given. We are unable to appreciate such an argument. In the circumstances, we will direct that possession of the plot in question may be given subject to further orders in the writ petition. The possession of the plot shall be handed over to the petitioner on 11th November, 1991 at 3.p.m. Let there be no default this time. A copy of this order will be given to learned Counsel for the parties dasti.

The matter will now come up for hearing on 13th December, 1991, Answer to show cause notice and reply may be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, before the date fixed.

41. Rule DB was issued in CW No. 3293/91 on 20.04.1992 and that case is still pending about the fixation of rate and which is under challenge in CW No. 3775/ 91. The petitioner seeks to challenge the enhancement on the grounds mentioned in CW No. 3775/91.

CW No. 4000/92:

42. Bal Shekshik Avam Boddhik Vikas Samiti has filed the writ petition who is the petition in CW No. 1826/92. In that petition the challenged the enhancement of costs of land from Rs. 19 lacs per acre to Rs. 31.20 lacs per acre by the DDA by its letter dated 4.5.1992 and challenging the letter dated 30.9.1992 by which the DDA called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the allotment should not be cancelled because the payment had not been made as undertaken by the petitioner.

43. The case of the petitioner is as under. The petitioner applied for allotment of land. By letter dated 4.4.1991 the petitioner was directed to pay a premium @ Rs. 19 lacs per acre. The petitioner deposited Rs. 9,38,967/- towards the cost of land and Rs. 23,475/- + Rs. 1/- on account of ground rent on 13.5.1991. The possession was not delivered to the petitioner and the petitioner has filed the Writ Petition No. 3293/91. The possession was delivered as could be seen from the order dated 20.4.1992 in CW 3293/91. This Court passed the order that no objection should be given allowing 40% area for the construction of school building subject to the decision of the writ petition. The order was passed on 24.5.1991 while the DDA when asked the petitioner to pay @ 8 lacs per acre. The DDA increased the rate to Rs. 19 lacs and the petitioner filed CW No. 1826/82 which has already been referred to. By a letter dated 4.5.1992 (which is not filed) the petitioner was informed to the DDA that the rate had been increased by Rs. 31.20 lacs per acre and the petitioner was asked to pay the amount. The petitioner sent a reply on 22.5.1992 to the DDA requesting for the withdrawal of the demand. The petitioner later on received the letter dated 13.9.1992 by the DDA calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the allotment should not be cancelled. The petitioner sent its reply on 2.11.1992. On 9.11.1992 the petitioner had filed the writ petition challenging the action taken by the DDA on the same ground as in CW No. 3775/91.

CW No. 3044/92:

44. Sanatan Dharm Adarsh Shiksha Sansthan has filed the writ petition challenging the letter dated 4.8.1992 by which the cost of land had been enhanced from Rs. 14.50 lacs per acre to Rs. 19.5 lacs per acre.

45. According to the petitioner by a letter dated 4.12.1990 the DDA had proposed to allot 3.40 acre (2 acre for school building and 1.40 acre for play ground). The rate fixed was Rs. 14.50 lacs per acre as the petitioner was required to pay annual ground rent 214% per annum. The petitioner was informed that the premium demanded was provisional and the Central Government may revise the rate and the petitioner should give an undertaking that it will pay the cost as revised by the Central Government. The petitioner paid the whole of the amount by 31.12.1990. On 11.3.1991 the possession was handed over to the petitioner. On 25.8.1991 the petitioner was granted no objection certificate for getting the plan for building sanctioned. As per the Master Plan which came into force on 1.8.1980 in respect of the secondary school 40% of the area was allocated for school building and 60% for play ground and the value was to be calculated only on that basis. By letter dated 2.7.1991 the petitioner wrote to the Ministry of Urban Development as against the cost of Rs. 18,95,940/- the petitioner had paid Rs. 29,41,820/- and thus the petitioner paid Rs- iO,45,880/-in excess.

46. By a letter dated 4.8.1992 the DDA wrote to the petitioner stating that the amount payable by the petitioner was Rs. 39,97,500/-. The petitioner had paid only Rs. 29,21,251/- and the petitioner should pay the balance of Rs. 10,76,249/-. The petitioner had challenged the action of the DDA on the same ground as mentioned in CW No. 3775/91.

CW No. 15/93:

47. Bosco Educational & Welfare Society has filed the aforesaid writ petition. The petitioner has stated that after complying with all formalities applied for allotment of land. By letter dated 30.5.1991 the land measuring 7294.7 sq. mtrs. (2735.5 sq. mtrs. area for school building and 4559.18 sq. mtrs. for the playground) for running a middle school at Paschim Vihar, @ Rs. 23.75 lacs per acre with annual ground rent at 2 and half % per annum. The petitioner was informed that the ratio of land of school building and play ground has since been revised to 40%: 60%. In Clause 6 it was made clear that.

The premium of land as demanded is provisional. The Society shall give an undertaking to the effect that it will pay the balance premium of land, as may be demanded by DDA on the basis of the rates determined by Central Government.

48. In para 29, the DDA has mentioned about the ratio in the following terms:

The ratio of land for school building & play field was 50:50, but the ratio has since been revised to 40:60 i.e. 40 for School Building and 60 for play field. The ratio to be charged due to the change of ratio as mentioned above is under consideration with DDA/Government of India. The Society, therefore, also requested to furnish undertaking to the effect that the Society will pay the difference on the basis of rates to be determined in this connection by the DDA/Government of India.

49. The petitioner had given an affidavit as required by the DDA undertaking to pay the difference in the cost of land as and when determined by the Government of India. The DDA by letter dated 7.9.1992 called upon the petitioner to pay a further sum of Rs. 19,72.165/-. The details are as under:

1.

Premium of land for the are measuring 1.8 acre Rs.39 lacs (0.90 acre) for building area.

Rs. 35,10,000/-

2. G.R. for one year @ 2 1/2% p.a. Rs. 87,750/-

3. Licence fee of play ground for one year @ Rs. 1,000/- per acre per annum.

Rs. 900/-

4. Interest on belated payment of premium.

Rs. 1,23,912/-

5. Total = Rs. 37,22,562/-

6. Less already paid.

Rs. 17,50,397/-

7. Now payable = Rs. 19,72,165/-

50. The petitioner was also informed that the ratio of building area and the play ground had been fixed at 50% : 50% and the value for the premium was accordingly changed. The petitioner has challenged this action of the DDA and the Government on the same ground as mentioned in CW. 3775/91, The petitioner had given undertaking as required by the DDA and the grievance of the petitioner is also that the ratio in the building area and the play ground cannot be unilaterally altered by the respondent.

CW No. 770/93:

51. Sundawn Education Society has filed the writ petition through its Chairman challenging the demand made by the DDA in its letter dated 6.1.1993.

52. The petitioner Society had applied for land in 1985 for running a middle school. On 6.12.1990,1.5 acre of land was allotted to the petitioner at Vasant Kunj, New Delhi for running a middle school {.75 acre for school building and .75 acre for playground). The petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 21,90,938/- (21,37,500/- toward premium of land and Rs. 53,438/- towards the ground rent). The petitioner had deposited the same. In para 6 of the letter the DDA stated that:

"The premium of land as demanded is provisional. The Society shall give an undertaking to the effect that it will pay the balance premium of land, as may be demanded by DDA on the basis of the rates determined by Central Government."

53. The possession was given to the first petitioner institution on 2.5.1992. The petitioners had taken steps for obtaining sanction for the construction of the building. The DDA had sent a letter dated 6.1.1993 demanding a sum of 8,61,625/- on the ground that the Government had fixed the rate @ Rs. 39 lacs for the period from 1-4.1989 to 31.3.1991.

1. Premium of land for the are measuring 0.75 acre @ Rs.39 lacs per acre.

Rs.

29,25,000/-

2. G.R. for one year @ two and half per cent p.a. Rs.

73,125/-

3. Licence fee of play ground for one year @ Rs. 1,000/- per acre per annum.

Rs.

1,000/-

4. Total = Rs.

29,99,125/-

5. Less already paid.

Rs.

21,37,500/-

6. Now payable = Rs.

08,61,625/-

54. The petitioner has challenged this action of the DDA and the Government on the same ground as mentioned in CW 3775/91.

CW No. 1415/93:

55. Shri Faqir Chand Suri Memorial Educational Society (Regd.) has filed the writ petition challenging the letter dated 19.2.1993 and also for mandamus for the respondent to grant permission of extension of time for completion of the building After complying with all the formalities the petitioner applied for allotment of land. By a letter dated 14.4.1988 the petitioner allotted one acre of land (.50 acre for building and .50 acre for play ground) with annual ground rent of 2 1/2 of the premium at the rate of Rs. 8 lacs per acre. The total demand was Rs. 4,10,001 /-. The petitioner paid the same.

56. In the letter dated 14.4.1988 whiling making the allotment the DDA states:

The Faqir Chand Suri Memorial Educational Society shall be required to pay the cost of land measuring 0.50 acres allotted for school building at the provisional rate of Rs. 8 lakhs per acre and annual ground rent @ 2 1/2% p.a. of the premium.

The Shri Faqir Chand Suri Memorial Educational Society shall pay the difference of cost of land as may be decided by the Government/DDA.

57. The petitioner cannot seek to quash the demand made by the DDA on the ground that there is no specific undertaking by the petitioner.

58. On 18.8.1988 a perpetual lease deed was executed between the petitioner and the DDA. On 19.2.1993, the DDA wrote to the petitioner stating that the Government of India had now fixed the rates for the period from 1.4.1989 to 31.3.1991 and the land rates was revised. The petitioner was directed to pay the difference amount of Rs. 08,95,942.50. The details are as under:

1.

Premium of land for the are measuring 0.50 acre @ Rs. 23,75,000/-

per acre.

Rs.

11,87,500.00

2. G.R. for one year @ 2 and half percent per annum.

Rs.

1,48,437.00

3. Licence fee of play ground for one year @ Rs. 1/- per acre per annum.

Rs.

5.00

4. Total = Rs.

13,35,942.50

5. Less already paid = Rs.

4,40,000.00

6. Now payable. = Rs.

8,95,942.50

59. Challenging this writ petition has been filed. The point raised is the same as in CW No. 3775/91 and it is not necessary to repeat the same.

CW No. 1696/93;

60. Harvard India Society has filed the writ petition challenging the demand of Rs. 5,39,134/- by letter dated 24.02.1993 and for a mandamus to the respondents to issue no objection certificate to enable the petitioner to mortgaging the land allotted to the petitioner in G. Block, Preet Vihar, New Delhi with a Bank and also for a direction to the 1st respondent to execute the lease deed in favour of the petitioner.

61. According to the petitioner on 9.11.1989 the 1st respondent allotted a plot of land measuring 2.01 acres to the petitioner for the purpose of running a middle school in 'G' Block, Preet Vihar, New Delhi, at the rate of Rs. 14.25 lacs per acre. The petitioner paid the entire amount as demanded by the respondent. The petitioner is running a school by putting up a temporary structure. The petitioner was put in possession of the land on 2.5.1990. The petitioner thereupon had taken steps for putting up construction. The DDA by letter dated 24.2.1993 called upon the petitioner to pay further sum of Rs. 5,39,134/- stating that the demand was made as the Government revised the rates.

62. On 24.2.1993, the DDA wrote to the petitioner stating that the Government of India had now fixed the rate for the period from 1.4.1989 to 31.3.1991 and the land rate was fixed at Rs. 19.50 lacs per acre. The petitioner was directed to pay the difference amount of Rs. 05,39,134/-. The details are as under:

1.

Premium of land for the area measuring one acre @ Rs.19.50 lacs per acre.

Rs.

19,50,000/-

2. G.R. for one year @ Rs. 2 and half percent per annum.

Rs.

48,750/-

3. Licence fee of play ground for one year @ Rs. 1000/- per acre per annum.

Rs.

1,010/-

4. Total = Rs.

19,99,760/-

5. Less already paid Rs.

14,60,626/-

6. Now payable = Rs.

05,39,134/-

63. Challenging this the writ petition has been filed. The point raised in CW No. 3775/91 is raised and it is not necessary to repeat the same.

OWNo.2739/93

64. Kataria Education Society has filed the writ petition challenging the demand made by the DDA for the allotment of land for running a middle school. The case of the petitioner briefly stated is this. In or about May, 1988 the petitioner applied to the DDA in the prescribed format for allotment of a piece of land for establishing a Middle/Primary school. By a letter of allotment dated 21.5.1991 a plot of land measuring 1.0562 hectares was allotted to the petitioner. Out of the total 2965.86 was earmarked for the construction of school building and the remaining area measuring 6601.44 sq. mtrs. was to be used for play field. Clause 1 of the allotment specifically mentioned that the petitioner would be required to pay the premium which was fixed provisionally for the land admeasuring 2960.86 sq. mtrs. which was for the construction of the school building @ Rs. 23.75 lacs per acre with annual ground rent @ Rs. 2 and half per cent p.a. on the total premium of the land. The petitioner was asked to pay a sum of Rs. 23,82,561 /- towards the cost of 2960.86 sq. mtrs. The petitioner vide letter dated 26.5.1991 to the Lt. Governor requested for payment instalment expressing its readiness to pay forthwith. The Lt. Governor by order dated 29.5.1991 permitted the petitioner to pay the amount in instalment. However, the Lt. Governor directed that the possession of the plot should be delivered when adequate amount is paid and on conditions of the petitioner giving bank guarantee for the balance payment. The DDA also conveyed the same to the petitioner on 5.8.1991. On 17.10.1991 the petitioner paid Rs. 10 lacs to the DDA. On 16.12.1991 a sum of Rs. 1,73,635/- was paid. On 1.2.1992 the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 13/82/561 /-. The petitioner wanted possession of the plot. In answer to that the DDA has stated that the petitioner had made delayed payment and therefore, the petitioner should pay interest for the period of delay. On 8.2.1982 the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 41,415/- towards interest. By DDA letter dated 12.10.1992 that the Government of India has revised the rent rate and the DDA wrote to the petitioner that the Government of India has revised the cost and the petitioner was liable to pay Rs. 28,25,195/- in addition to the payment already made with interest for the delayed payment. The relevant portion of the letter reads as under:

1.

The premium of land for the area measuring 1.0562 Hect. @ Rs.39 lacs per acre.

Rs.

50,89,177/-

2. Ground Rent for the one year @ 2 and half percent p.a. of the total premium.

Rs.

1,27,230/-

3. Licence fee of play ground for one year @ Rs. 1000/- per acre per annum.

Rs.

1,305.00

4. Interest on previous belated payment as on 31.8.92.

Rs.

2,05,094/-

5. Total = Rs.

54,22,806/-

6. Less already paid Rs.

25,97,611/-

7. Now payable Rs.

28,25,195/-

65. It may be noticed that Rs. 50,89,177/- mentioned in the letter is only the premium of land for the area measuring 1.0562 Hec. @ Rs. 39 lac per acre as could be seen from the Annexure H (allotment letter) for building and not for the entire area allotted to the petitioner and what was allotted for the construction of the building was 3960.86 sq. mtrs. The petitioner did not pay and therefore on 10.03.1993, the DDA issued notice to the petitioner which reads as under:

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (INSTITUTIONAL BRANCH) f.18(24)89/iNSTTL./562 Vikas Sadan IN A, New Delhi 10 Mar 1993 To The President, Kataria Educational Society, WZ-19, Krishna Puri (Near Outer Ring Road), Tilak Nagar, New Delhi--110 018.

Sub: Allotment of land measuring 1.0562 Hect. in Vikas Puri to Kataria Educational Society for construction of Middle School.

Whereas by virtue of this office demand-cum-allotment letter of even No. dated 21.5.1991, you were allotted a plot of land measuring 1.0562 Hect. in Vikas Puri to Kataria Educational Society for construction of Middle School.

And whereas by virtue of terms and conditions of allotment you were liable to make the payment towards the difference of allotted land/ground rent as and when demanded by the DDA.

And whereas by virtue of this office demand letter of even No. dated 12.10.1992, you were requested to make the payment of Rs. 28,25,195/- on account of difference of premium of land/ground rent within 30 days from the date of issue of the letter i.e. November 11, 1992.

And whereas it has come to notice that you have failed to deposit the demanded amount within the stipulated period. As such, you have committed the breach of the terms and conditions of the allotment of the above referred school site.

Now please take this notice that in case of your failure to pay the due said amount alongwith the interest charges @ 18% per annum within 15 days from the date of issue of the letter, action to recover the same under Punjab Revenue Act will be taken without any further reference to you.

66. In the writ petition Clause 6 of the allotment letter is extracted and the same reads as under:

"6-- the premium of land as demanded is provisional. The Society shall give an undertaking to the effect that it will pay the balance premium of land, as may be demanded by the DDA on the basis of the rates determined by Central Government."

67. The petitioner prays for the following relief :

(a) issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature thereof or any other appropriate writ, order or directions calling for the records from the office of the respondent pertaining to the allotment of a plot of land admeasuring 1.0562 hectares to the petitioner Society for running a middle school at Vikas Puri, New Delhi;

(b) issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature thereof or any other appropriate writ, order or directions quashing and setting aside determination of the cost of land allotted to the petitioner, as demanded vide communication dated October 12, 1992 (Annexure -C hereto) of the respondent Authority to the extent it is in excess of the price worked out on 'No-profit no-loss' basis:

(c) issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature thereof or any other appropriate writ, order or directions directing the respondent authority to forthwith deliver the possession of the plot of land in question to the petitioner Society;

(d) issue any other and/or further appropriate writ, order or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;

(d-1) issue writ of mandamus or writ in the nature thereof or any other appropriate writ, order or directions directing the respondent authority to charge the premium at the rate to be determined by this Hon'ble Court under the present proceedings only in respect of the land admeasuring 37.5% of the land and not 50% as claimed by the respondent/DDA.

68. The DDA filed its counter affidavit and it has denied the facts mentioned by the petitioner and has stated that the rate fixed in the allotment letter was provisional and the petitioner was bound to pay the amount demanded by the DDA. The DDA has justified its action by stating as under:

As regards the grievance of the petitioner Society regarding the demand of the premium of land for an area of 5281.52 sq. mtrs. i.e. for half of the entire plot of land which was totalling 1.0562 hectares, as against an area of 3960.86 sq. mtrs. which was allotted for the construction of the school building, it is submitted that in fact the revised demand has been raised as per the prevailing existing policy in this regard. It may be explained that since there is no provision of middle schools in the Master Plan, cases where allotments were to be made for a middle school were put up in the Technical Committee meeting and it was decided on 15.10.1990 that such sites where the allotment was for an area of more than 0.6 hectares could be considered for allotment of a middle school based on the recommendation by the Delhi Administration. Subsequently the calculation of building area and play field area were modified by the Technical Committee on the basis of 50% building area and 50% as play area. It was decided that the Development Controls would be fixed as per the Senior School Code No. 082. The details of area and development control were laid down as follows :

1. Maximum Ground coverage 30% of building area.

2. Maximum FAR 100 of building area

3. Maximum height 14 mtrs.

4. Set backs: Front --18 mtrs. Rear -- 6 mtrs. Sides -- 6 mtrs.

The possession plan of the Society was prepared in accordance with these norms and that is -why the demand was raised for an area of 5281.52 sq. mtrs.

69. The DDA has also ignored how the demand made and why the DDA was asking for making payment of interest on the delayed payment. In the counter affidavit the DDA states:

"It is very pertinent to note that in case the petitioner Society wants to continue with the payment according to the earlier schedule of an area of 3960.86 sq.mtrs. that would amount to a demand of 40% of the total land area which is only done under the current existing norms for a primary school. If that were so then the ground coverage, the FAR etc. would all be much less. The petitioner Society cannot have the be5t of both worlds. It cannot demand that the payment for the premium of land be made as per the norms for a primary school but permission be granted to it for the running of a middle/senior secondary school. In fact, the letter dated 21.5.91 on which the petitioner is relying was issued inadvertently during the period when the Technical Committee was finalising its stand on the issue of the demand of premium and break up of land area for middle schools. Since the petitioner society is now being asked to pay in accordance with the prevailing norms and as is the current practice being followed for all such societies where permission is being granted for the running of a middle school nothing illegal or discriminatory has been done in the case of the petitioner Society.

It is denied in reply to para 24 that there has been any default in delivering the possession of the plot of the land in accordance with the terms and conditions of the letter of allotment dated May 21, 1991. It may be explained that in the instant case demand-cum-allotment letter for a middle school site was issued on 21.5.91 with the request to make the payment of premium and ground rent amounting to Rs. 23,82,561 /- within one month. However, thereafter there was a request on behalf of the petitioners to make the payment in instalments. The Hon'ble L.G. vide his Minutes dated 29.5.91 on the P.U.C letter dated 27.5.91 passed the following orders:

"may be permitted to make payment in instalments and possession delivered when the adequate amount is paid and the reminder secured against Bank guarantee".

The Society was willing to pay only Rs.10 lacs before taking the possession of land and wanted to pay the balance amount in 12 instalments. The said proposal was considered but it was felt that the request of the Society for paying only Rs. 10 lacs initially and for payment of the balance amount in 12 annual instalments was not reasonable and it was suggested by the Director (Lands) that the entire balance amount may be allowed to be paid in 8 quarterly instalments along with interest subject to furnishing of Bank guarantee. This proposal was put up to the Vice Chairman, DDA who however vide his noting dated 25.6.91 opined that it would be difficult for the DDA to maintain receipt of 8 instalments and thus the balance payment should be made in two equal instalments to be made at an interval of 6 months each as per the norms normally adopted in such cases. In accordance with the said orders of the Vice Chairman, DDA the Society was informed that they could deposit Rs. 10 lacs immediately and pay the balance amount in two equal instalments payable at six monthly intervals with interest charges @ 18% per annum and such instalments would be payable on 20.12.91 and 20.6.92. The Society instead of making the payment of Rs. 10 lacs immediately as demanded by the DDA deposited the same on 17.10.91 i.e. 4 months late. The Society also furnished an affidavit/undertaking to pay the balance amount in two instalments as fixed i.e. on 20.12,91 and 20.6.92. The Society did not even make the payment of the instalment on 20.12.91. Thereafter interest charges on the belated amount were due to the tune of Rs. 41,306/- which were again not paid by the Society on time. It is thus clear that there has been no default on the part of the DDA in giving possession of the plot of land to the petitioner Society. The delay has been on the part of the Society at various stages."

70. The DDA has also ignored the justification in making the payment in the following terms :

It is denied in reply to these paras that the demand of the DDA is illegal, arbitrary or preposterous or that the DDA has unilateral!/ altered the terms and conditions of the allotment of land to its own advantage and to the detriment of the petitioner Society. It is submitted that although in the letter of allotment dated 21.5.91 the DDA only made a mention that the allotment was at a provisional rate and thereby reserved its right to vary the rate of premium of land demanded it does not flow that the DDA could not alter the basis of calculation of the area of which the payment had to be demanded. It has already at a time when the Technical Committee was still deciding and finalising the norms for the calculation of area which was to be taken into consideration for payment of premium of middle schools. The petitioner Society was required to pay the premium of land @ Rs. 39 lacs per acre. It is submitted that the said rate was fixed by the Government of India for the West Zone. The petitioner Society had in fact already been informed vide letter dated 21.5.91 that the allotment was being made at a provisional rate of 23.65 lacs per acre and that the said provisional rate of land was under the consideration of the Central Government. It was further also stated that the allottee would have to pay the balance premium for the land as per the rates determined by the Central Government and within the time frame fixed by the DDA. It was also clearly mentioned that the rates of land determined by the Central Government would be binding upon the allottee and would not be questioned by the allottee in any proceeding. It is in accordance with the rates fixed by the Central Government at Rs. 39 lacs per acre for the West Zone that the demand has been raised from the petitioner Society. A copy of the Notification notifying the rate at Rs. 39 lacs per acre is already annexed hereto as Annexure R-l.

As regards the grievance of the petitioner Society regarding the demand of the premium of land for an area of 5281.52 sq. mtrs. i.e. for half of the entire plot of land which was totalling 1.0562 hectares, as against an area of 3960.86 sq. mtrs. which was allotted for the construction of the school building. It is submitted that in fact the revised demand has been raised as per the prevailing existing policy in this regard. It may be explained that since there is no provision of middle schools in the Master Plan, cases where allotments were to be made for a middle school were put up in the Technical Committee meeting and it was decided on 15.10.1990 that such sites where the allotment was for an area of more than 0.6 hectares could be considered for allotment of a middle school based on the recommendation by the Delhi Administration. Subsequently the calculation of building area and play field area were modified by the Technical Committee on the basis of 50% building area and 50% as play area. It was decided that the Development Controls would be fixed as per the Senior School Code No. 082. The details of area and development control were laid down as follows:

1. Maximum Ground coverage 30% of building area.

2. Maximum FAR 100 of building area.

3. Maximum height 14 mtrs.

4. Set backs: Front -- 18 mtrs.

Rear -- 6 mtrs. Sides -- 6 mtrs.

71. The DDA has also ignored its stand about the allotment of area 3960.86 sq. mtrs. in the following terms:

It is very pertinent to note that in case the petitioner Society wants to continue with the payment according to the earlier schedule of an area of 3960.86 sq. mtrs. that would amount to a demand of 40% of the total land area which is only done under the current existing norms for a primary school. If that were so then the ground coverage, the FAR etc. would all be much less. The petitioner society cannot have the best of both worlds. It cannot demand that the payment for the premium of land be made as per the norms for a primary school but permission be granted to it for the running of a middle/senior secondary school. In fact, the letter dated 21.5.91 on which the petitioner is relying was issued inadvertently during the period when the Technical Committee was finalising its stand on the issue of the demand of premium and break up of land area for middle schools. Since the petitioner Society is now being asked to pay in accordance with the prevailing norms and as is the current practice being followed for all such Societies where permission is being granted for the running of a middle school nothing illegal or discriminatory has been done in the case of the petitioner society.

72. The DDA has also stated that the Government had fixed the rates as per the policy decision taken by it and it is not subject to judicial review. We are of the view that the decision taken by the Government and the DDA cannot be assailed and we see no substance in the writ petition.

It may be noticed that the petitioner has reiterated the grounds raised in CW No. 3775/91 and it is not necessary to repeat the same.

CW No. 2211/93:

73. Delhi Public School Society has filed the above writ petition challenging the demand dated 31.3.1993 for Rs. 46.12 lacs by the DDA. The case of the petitioner could be stated briefly in the following terms.

74. By a letter dated 24.7.1989 the DDA wrote to the petitioner that it had proposed to allot the land measuring 4 acres (2 acres for school building and 2 acres for play ground @ Rs. 28.50 lacs per acre with annual ground rent @ Rs. two and half per cent per annum of the premium provisionally. On 12.3.1990 fresh allotment of 6.9 acres was made to the petitioner out of entitlement of 10 acres. (3.5 acres for building and 3.4 acres for play ground) with annual ground rent of Rs. 1 /- per acre per year. The total amount demanded by the DDA is Rs. 1.02 crore which was paid by the petitioner. The petitioner has given undertaking dated 13.3.1990 that it would pay the additional amount as determined by the Government. The demand made by the DDA is as under:

1.

Total area of the plot to be allotted to the Society.

6.9 acre

(a) for school building 3.5 acre

(b) for play ground.

3.40 acre

3. Cost/Premium of 3.5 acre land Rs. 28.50 lacs per acre.

Rs.

99,75,000/-

4. G.R. @ two and half percent per annum for the first year.

Rs.

2,49,375/-

5. G.R. at the nominal rate of Rupee 1/-per year for play ground.

Rs.

1/-

Rs.

1,02,24,376/-

6. Less already paid.

Rs.

58,42,501/-

Rs.

43,81,875/-

7. Now payable = NIL

75. The petitioner was also asked to give an undertaking that it will pay additional cost of land on demand to the DDA for residential component as may be decided by the DDA. On 19.03.1990 undertaking was given by the petitioner. By letter dated 20.2.1991 the DDA wrote to the petitioner mentioning the terms and conditions which are addition to the terms and conditions which are already stipulated. By a letter dated 21.2.1991 the petitioner wrote to the DDA stating that it would have no objection to include the Central Government representative for the admission of children of Central Government employees. By a letter dated 31.3.1993 the DDA wrote to the petitioner making a demand in the sum of Rs. 46,12,749/- on the basis that the Government of India had revised the rates from the period from 1.4.1989 to 31.3.1991 @ Rs. 39 lacs per acre. The details are as under:

1.

Premium of land for the area measuring 3.71 acre @ Rs. 39 lacs per acre.

Rs. 1,44,69,000/-

2. G.R. for one year @ Rs. two and half per cent per annum.

Rs. 4,61,975/-

3. Licence fee of play ground for one year @ Rs. 1000/-per acre per annum.

Rs. 6,150/-

4. Total = Rs. 1,48,37,125/-

5. Less already paid.

Rs. 1,02,24,376/-

6. Now payable = Rs. 46,12,749/-

76. The petitioner has challenged the demand in writ petition on the points raised in CW No. 3775/91 and it is not necessary to repeat the same.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners in the above batch writ petitions submitted that the judgment of this Court reported in Rose Educational Scientific and Cultural Society (Regd.) and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., which has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court reported in Delhi Development Authority v. Lal Amar Nath Educational & Human Society, 1990(3) Delhi Lawyer 347 would govern these cases. Neither the DDA nor the Central Government was justified in increasing the cost of land.

77. Mr. Ravinder Sethi, learned Senior Counsel for the DDA submitted that the judgment of this Court reported in Rose Educational Scientific and Cultural Society (Regd.) and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., which was affirmed by the Division Bench was on different facts and the ratio laid down therein would not apply to the facts of the above batch of petitions.

78. On a consideration of the entire materials placed before us we are of the view that the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the DDA has to be accepted. In the decision of Rose Educational Scientific and Cultural Society (Regd.) and Ors. V. Union of India and others , , the important aspect which was presented on behalf of the petitioners was that DDA and the Government could act only in accordance with the terms of the allotment letter and the lease deed and the Government had no authority to increase the cost of land unilaterally. In para 14 of the judgment on this aspect the learned Judge held :

It has been strongly contended by Shri S.P. Kalra, Counsel for the DDA that there was an undertaking given by the petitioners that they would pay the additional amount as and when demanded by the respondents. Shri Kalra has not been able to bring to my notice any document which contains any such undertaking, except the letter of allotment and the lease deed which have already been adverted to hereinabove. If there had been any undertaking given by the petitioners to the respondents, de hors what has been indicated hereinabove, then, possibly, the respondents may have been entitled to charge in excess of Rs. 9,50,000/- per acre. In the absence of any such document having been placed on record, or even shown to me at the time of arguments, I am unable to come to the conclusion that any such undertaking was given especially when the Counsel for the petitioners deny the giving of any such undertaking.

79. The learned Judge was very much alive to the aspect referred to above and the learned judge rested his decision on the letter of allotment and the lease deed. The observations made by the learned judge in this behalf is very relevant and the same are as under:

It is made clear that I am not deciding on the validity of the prices of land fixed by the respondents w.e.f. 1st April 1987. That policy may be fully justified and valid. It is not that policy which is being challenged, but what is being challenged is the implementation of that policy to the cases like the present, where letters of allotment and lease deeds had already been executed and which contained a different principle for determining the enhancement of prices which would be payable by the petitioners.

80. The arguments against change of policy of fixing ratio between the area for the building and the play ground cannot at all be entertained for, it is for the Government to formulate the policy and the principle on the basis of which the policy had been formulated cannot be gone into unless there is an unimpeachable materials to show that the policy is against the provisions of the constitution and that is not the case here. Mr. Ravinder Sethi, learned senior Counsel for the DDA submitted that it is well settled that the persons like the petitioner cannot challenge the policy.

81. In the light of the principles laid by the Supreme Court, we are not inclined to interfere with the decision taken by the government and the DDA. The writ petitions stand dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Devinder Gupta, J.

1. While agreeing with the conclusions of my learned Brother K. Ramamoorthy, J., I would like to add a separate note incorporating my reasons in concurring with the conclusions.

2. Facts need not be reiterated except to note that the challenge by the petitioners is to the additional demand made by Delhi Development Authority for the land allotted to them. The reason for raising additional demand is the Notification of Government of India fixing rates for the relevant periods when the allotments were made.

3. Only the relevant facts in one of the petitions are being noted, which except for slight variations are similar to the other petitions with almost common grounds raised in all the petitions.

4. The petitioner applied for allotment of institutional land for running a school. The land was to be allotted under Rule 5 of the Delhi Development (Disposal of Nazul Lands) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The rates at which land had to be allotted were to be such, "as may be fixed by the Central Government from time to time". The rates for the period from 1,4.1987 to 31.3.1989 had not been fixed by the Central Government, when allotment was made. As such, the allotment was made at provisional rate, subject to payment of the balance amount, on fixing of the rates by Central Government. The petitioner Society accepted the terms and conditions of the allotment and agreed to undertake to pay the balance amount on demand being raised, on fixing of rate by Central Government. It is important to note that the provisional rates at which allotment was made were not the "no profit no loss rate" for the preceding year. "No profit no loss rate" for the preceding year was Rs. 9.50 lakhs per acre whereas the provisional rate demanded was at Rs. 28.50 lakhs for the south zone; Rs. 23.75 lakhs for the west zone; Rs. 19 lakhs per acre for the north zone and Rs. 14.25 lakhs per acre for the east zone. These rates were the rates fixed by Central Government for allotment of institutional land for the preceding years, which the petitioners, while agreeing to pay the balance amount, as demanded, paid to the respondent. Through the impugned Notification dated 5.9.1991, the Central Government fixed the rates from 1,4.1989 to 31.3.1991 at Rs. 32.50 lakhs per acre for the west zone; Rs. 26 lakhs per acre for the north zone and Rs. 19.50 lakhs per acre for the east zone.

5. The petitioner's case is that they are entitled to allotment at "no profit no loss rate" since they were promised land at "no profit no loss rate", therefore, demand raised for payment of the amount at the rates fixed by the Central Government, through the impugned Notification, which is linked with the market value, is illegal and contrary to the decision of Division Bench of this Court in Delhi Development Authority v. Lala Amarnath Educational and Human Society & Another, . The petitioner' has pleaded that the letter of allotment was similarly worded with similar conditions for payment of the balance amount as contained therein as in the case of Lala Amarnath Educational Society's case (supra), therefore, fixing of the rates by Central Government, which is not "no profit no loss rate", and the demand based on that is bad in law and is liable to be struck down.

6. Case of the respondent DDA is that the allotment of Nazul land is made under the Rules. Rule 5 provides that allotment of institutional land will be made at the rate, which may be fixed by the Government from time to time. There is no constraint under the Rules as to what should be the rate. Fixing of the rate is at the discretion of the Government. The Rules do not provide for "no profit no loss rates". There is no right much less a vested right of the Institutions to demand allotment of land at "no profit no loss rates". The only right, which can be said to be vested in the Institutions is of consideration for allotment and that too subject to availability of land and at the rates that may be fixed by Central Government. There is a marked difference between allotment of land under Rule 5 with the allotments which are made under Rule 6. Rule 6 speaks of allotment at pre-determined rates, which have been defined under Rule 2(c) of the Rules, which are more akin to "no profit no loss rates", in as much as Central Government, while fixing pre-determined rates has to have regard to cost of land and cost of development amongst other things. The rates, which are fixed by Central Government are much lower than the market rates. Central Government has the widest discretion under Rule 5. About 50% of the land which is to be used as a play ground is being given free of cost. The petitioners have not to pay the amount for the entire land allotted to them, but only to the extent, which is the land to be used for purposes other than play ground. There is no discrimination in fixing the rates. Decision in Lala Amarnath's case (supra) is not applicable. The said judgment is an authority only for what it actually decided. Letters of allotment in the cases covered by decision in Lala Amarnath's case (supra) referred to provisional rate, which was "no profit no loss rate" for the preceding years and the Court in its judgment noted the fact that till October, 1988, when the rates for the period from 1.4.1987 to 31.3.1989 were notified by Central Government, the policy was to charge on the basis of "no profit no loss rates". In view of this fact that when in the allotment letter, the Society was asked to pay at a provisional rate, which was the rate prevalent for the earlier two years, the Court held that difference of costs, as may be decided by Central Government, could only mean that the basis for the charges would remain the same, namely, "no profit no loss basis".

7. Reply filed on behalf of Union of India on the affidavit of B.R. Dhiman, Under Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi is more or less on the same lines that the principle of "no profit no loss" is applicable only to transfer of land from one department of Government to another department of Government. It is not at all applicable to allotments made to persons or Institutions not covered by Rule 282 of the General Financial Rules. The allotment of land by DDA is governed by the Rules framed in exercise of powers conferred by Delhi Development Act. Rule 5 of the Rules provides that the authority may allot land to various Institutions at a premium and the ground rent, as Central Government may determine from time to time. The reply has elaborately dealt with the policy of fixing of the rates. It states that sometimes in 1953, it was felt that since medical, health and education was the direct responsibility of the Central Government, land should be allotted at concessional rates, i.e. below the "no profit no loss" rates. Moreover, it was felt that if the community takes initiative in establishing organisations in these sectors, it should be encouraged and subsidised to a large extent.

8. Accordingly, the trend of rates of allotment followed the pattern given herein below:

Year Concessional rate per acre NPNL rate per acre 1953 Rs. 5,000/- + 5% as annual ground rent Rs. 36,000/- + 5% as annual ground rent 21.2.64

-do-

Rs. 1 lakh+Rs. 1800 as annual ground rent 14.9.67

-do-

Rs. 3 lakhs +3.5% as annual ground rent Upto 1981, the Central Government, Departments, Ministries were allowed/ transferred utilisation of land free of charge, while in 1981 the "no profit no loss" rate was utilised for inter-departmental transfers and also for calculating the Annual Ground Rent.

9. In 1981, Governmental policy on allotment of land underwent a change, in so far as educational institutions are concerned. A distinction was now made between recognised and aided schools and recognised and unaided schools. For the aided schools, the premium was fixed at Rs. 10,000/- per acre and 5% of the premium as ground rent. For unaided schools the premium was fixed at Rs. 6,00,000/- per acre and the annual ground rent was 2.5% of the premium. Copy of the Notification dated 12.11.1981 reflecting the above rates has been annexed as Annexure R-1. By another Notification dated 19.11.1981 and in terms of General Finance Rule, 282, the "no profit no loss" rate was increased from Rs. 3 lakhs per acre to Rs. 6 lakhs per acre. Copy of the notification has been attached as Annexure R-2.

10. It is stated that at the instance of the Ministry of Education the premium for unaided schools was sought to be increased from the concessional rate to Rs. 6 lakhs per acre, which was equivalent to the "no profit no loss" rate. The Delhi Development Authority, however, on 17.5.1978 resolved that unaided schools may be charged only Rs. 1 lakh per acre. This proposal was supported by the Delhi Administration and was discussed at length by the Ministry of Education, whose views were taken into consideration by the Ministry of Urban Development before finalising land rates effective from 1981. This is how the unaided schools were charged premium equivalent to the "no profit no loss" rate.

11. The reply further states that the "no profit no loss" rate is worked out on the basis of cost of acquisition, the cost of development and overhead charges. The figures necessary for making all calculations are obtained from the Delhi Development Authority and the Central Public Works Department and Delhi Administration. From 1981 onwards, the premia was fixed as follows:

Year Concessional rate per acre NPNL rate per acre 1.4.81 Rs. 10,000/- + 5% as Annual Ground Rent Rs. 6 lakhs+2.5% as Annual Ground Rent 1.4.85

-do-

Rs. 8 lakhs+2.5% as Annual Ground rent

12. Recognised and unaided schools were being charged premium at a rate equivalent to the "no profit no loss" rate.

13. When land rates from 1.4.87 to 31.3.89 were being considered, the recommendations of Ministry of Education, Delhi Administration and Delhi Development Authority were taken into consideration by the Ministry of Urban Development, who took all relevant factors and data into consideration and recommended the "no profit no loss" rate at Rs. 9.50 lakhs per acre. It was also recommended that the concessional rate for aided schools and hospitals be increased from 10,000/- per acre to Rs. 30,000/- per acre. This proposal was sent to the Ministry of Finance for its approval and concurrence in October, 1987.

14. The Ministry of Finance perused the proposal in early December, 1987 and observed that the whole question of subsidy be re-examined by the Ministry of Urban Development, since the factors valid in 1953 may not beholding good today. It was also felt that the growth of private educational institutions had been encouraging and some, if not all, are functioning on commercial lines. Moreover, some of these institutions were being founded from other sources as well. These observations were even endorsed by the Minister of State for Finance (Expenditure) and the Finance Minister in December, 1987.

15. For rational sating the matter and suggesting land rates for allotment of land to various categories of institutions an Advisory Committee consisting of Secretary, Urban Development, Vice-Chairman, DDA, Joint Secretary (F), Joint Secretary (UD) in the Ministry of Urban Development presided over by Secretary was constituted. In the meeting held on 15.2.88, the Advisory Committee felt that instead of adopting a uniform rate for allotment of land, the zonal variant concept ought to be introduced as is the practice adopted in notifying schedule of market rate because uniform institutional rate has resulted in demand for land in central areas and other areas were neglected. It was felt that it looks incongruous that land in the heart of Delhi is allotted at the same rate as in outlying areas. This led to pressure for allotment in Central areas and even in misuse of the land in these areas.

16. The views of the Advisory Committee were subsequently reiterated, while considering fixing land rates and it was observed that many institutions are not willing to accept land in far flung areas. It was also felt that value of land had steeply increased and unaided schools also increased their fees but were allotted land at a highly concessional rates in central area. It was also observed that Delhi Administration had no control on unaided schools and the management indulged in corrupt practices making unauthorised levies from parents besides tuition fees, not diverting the total collection of fees and funds to the schools fund, underpayment of staff, not providing proper conditions of service for staff, non-submission of accounts to Delhi Administration, misuse of premises for unauthorised classes etc. It was observed that if unaided schools are charged more for the land, they will increase their fees. But it was felt that these schools serve the interests of the upper classes, by and large, and they need very little subsidy. The present policy had already resulted in a number of schools meant for upper classes having been established in Delhi and there was not further need to encourage such institutions.

17. This view was approved by the Urban Development Minister in May, 1988. The Ministry of Finance also examined all aspects of the case and the views of the Ministry of Urban Development were approved by the Finance Minister in August, 1988.

18. As regards the concessional rate for allotment of land, the Ministry of Urban Development felt that it should be fixed at Rs. 30,000/- per acre but this was not approved by the Finance Ministry who decided to continue the old rate of Rs. 10,000/- per acre. To avoid further delay in notifying the land rates, in those respects in which there was no disagreement, approval of the Finance Ministry was obtained in September, 1988 and the land rates notified on 4.10.1988 when the differences relating to aided schools were ironed out, these too were notified on 4.10.1988, copy of which has been attached as Annexure R-3.

19. The reply states that in view of the above, the "no profit no loss" is a concept alien to fixation of premium for allotment of land to educational institutions. From 1953 to 1981 all education institutions were being charged a concessional subsidised land rate. In 1981, at the instance of the Ministry of Education, it was decided to charge unaided schools, a rate equivalent to the "no profit no loss" rate and aided schools were charged the concessional subsidised rate. In 1987-88, at the instance of the Ministry of Finance, an entire review of allotments was carried out and for valid reason it was decided to introduce the existing zonal variant rate in respect of institutional allotments including to unaided educational institutions. This was approved at the highest level, both in the Urban Development Ministry and the Ministry of Finance. Even after introduction of the zonal variant concept the land rate for unaided educational institutions is much less than the market rate of land. The concept of zonal variant having been accepted in 1987-89, all that has been done is that it has been applied for 1989-91 and subsequently.

20. In the aforementioned background, it is stated that neither the decision in Lala Amarnath's case (supra) is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, nor petitioners are entitled to any relief in this petition.

21. In the light of the aforementioned pleadings at the outset it may be observed that there is a marked difference between the facts of the cases in hand with those, which were the subject matter in Lala Atnarnath's case (supra). As has been noticed above, the provisional rates, which the DDA had asked the Institutions to pay, which were covered by the decision in Lala Amarnath's case (supra) were the rates for the preceding year on "no profit no loss" basis; whereas in the allotment letters, which are the subject matter of the instant writ petitions "no profit no loss" rates of the preceding years is not the basis for the provisional rates. At no stage, the petitioners were ever assured or asked that they will be charged "no profit no loss rates". The petitioners were clearly informed through the offer letters that with reference to their application, land has been allotted at a rate, which was provisional subject to fixation of rate by the Government of India. There is no denial that the petitioners were apprised that they will have to pay the difference in rates, as and when decided by the Government of India and to furnish an undertaking to that effect. In Lala Amarnath's case (supra), the Court noticed the fact that when earlier the allotment letters were issued and the Societies gave undertakings to pay the difference of costs of land, all concerned were under the belief that any enhancement in the cost of land would be with reference to the increased cost of acquisition and other developmental charges and no one could even entertain a belief that basis of "no profit no loss" would altogether change and the authorities would demand difference in cost of land on the basis of market value in contravention of the conditions. In para-12 of the judgment, Court noticed that all through till the policy for two years, i.e., from 1.4.1987 to 31.3.1989 was announced in October, 1988, the charges for the land allotted to educational societies had been on the basis of "no profit no loss basis". Societies had been asked to pay at the rate of Rs. 8 lakhs per acre, which was the rate prevalent for the earlier two years and was "no profit no loss rate" and was further told that it would pay difference of cost of land, as might be decided by the Government. It would only mean that the basis for charges would nevertheless remain the same. No one could imagine that in the allotment letter even a hint was thrown that charges henceforth would be linked with the present market value in Delhi. Thus, even in Lala Amarnath's case (supra), the provisional rates were also "no profit no loss rates" for the preceding years, when the impugned demand in those cases was challenged. It was challenged on the ground that rates demanded were not "no profit no loss rates", but were linked with market value. Therefore, the basis for demand could not change from "no profit no loss rates" to rates linked to market value.

22. The ratio of the decision in Lala Amarnath's case (supra) cannot apply to the cases in hand. We are primarily concerned with the letter of allotment, in which the provisional rates, as notified, was the rate linked with market value for the preceding two years and had nothing to do with "no profit no loss rates". There is no material on record to suggest that any assurance was held out to the petitioners that allotment will be made or was being made on "no profit no loss" basis. Therefore, the stand of the petitioners is baseless. The petitioners had agreed to make payment of the balance amount, as and when determined by Central Government. Central Government has satisfactorily explained its policy and the basis for fixing the rates. The petitioners have neither challenged those basis on which the price has been determined nor have they challenged the zonal variant. Their only case is that they are entitled to allotment of land on "no profit no loss" basis.

23. The Apex Court in a number of decisions has held that in price fixation, the executive has wide discretion and is only answerable provided there is any statutory control over its policy of price fixation, which in the instant case, is none as is reflected in Rule 5. It is not the function of the Court to sit in judgment and interfere in price fixation matters or over such matters of economic policy and it must be left to Government to decide the same. Reference be made to the decisions in Premji Bhai Parmar and Ors. v. DDA and Ors.,. 1980 SC 738 and Shri Sitaram Sugar Company Limited and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., .

24. In Rama Nand v. Union of India and Ors., , Full Bench of this Court held that it is the premium calculated at the time prevailing, when firm offer of allotment is made by DDA that would publicly constitute the consideration for concluding a valid contract between the parties. The price of land prevailing at the time of communication of the letter of allotment is the rate payable by an allottee, as held in DDA v. Pushpender Kumar Jain, 1994 Supplement (3) SCC 494. The reason for this principle has been stated that in case the allottee is not willing to take or accept the allotment at the rates, it is always open to him to decline the allotment.

25. In the cases in hand, the petitioners were duly informed by DDA that the allotment was being made at provisional rates, which in the preceding two years were not the "no profit no loss" rates, but were the provisional market rates, which rates were under challenge in Lala Amarnath's case (supra). Therefore, petitioners knew, when they accepted the allotment and agreed and undertook to pay the difference that they were accepting, which were not the "no profit no loss" rates, but were the provisional market rates. As such, the petitioners are precluded from urging that they are entitled to allotment on "no profit no loss" basis or that they are bound to pay rates at "no profit no loss" basis. The rates which were prevalent in the preceding two years, were revised by the Government and there is no denial or dispute that the demand has been raised on the increased rates. The respondent DDA has asked the petitioners to pay the difference only on those basis, namely market rates, which were revised. The basis for the demand remains the same. There is no question of estoppel, nor any question of arbitrariness arises in this case. The petitions are misconceived and are liable to be dismissed.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court