Delhi High Court
Delhi Union Of Journalist Cooperative ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 16 April, 2007
Author: S. Muralidhar
Bench: S. Muralidhar
ORDER S. Muralidhar, J.
1. The Petitioners are three cooperative societies of journalists, who were allotted land admeasuring 230 bighas in Gulmohar Park, New Delhi by a lease deed dated 4.7.1962. With a view to providing other facilities to the members of these societies, the Petitioners formed the Gulmohar Park Journalists Education Society in 1981. In the same year Petitioner Nos. 3 Society wrote to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) seeking grant of the lease of a plot of land for a nursery school.
2. By Notification dated 20.9.1995, the Central Government modified the Master Plan for Delhi, 1962 whereby certain additional activities were permitted on the lands in residential areas. This included running a fine arts school. Pursuant to the said notification, land measuring 1000 sq. mtr. located in Gulmohar Park, New Delhi was allotted in favor of Respondent No. 4, Kalashram for the purposes of running a Dance and Drama Institute. A perpetual lease deed was executed by the DDA in favor of Respondent No. 4 on 25.9.1997. After the full payment was made by Respondent No. 4, possession of the allotted land was handed over to it on 21.11.1997.
3. The Petitioners here challenged the allotment in favor of Kalashram by filing a Writ Petition (Civil) No. 662/2000 in this Court. The prayer in the writ petition was that the Notification dated 20.9.1995 should be quashed and that the allotment in favor of Respondent No. 4 should be cancelled. The contention of the Petitioners in the said writ petition was that they had been trying to get an allotment of the plot allotted to Respondent No. 4 and their claims for land for running a nursery school ought to have been considered even before making the allotment in favor of Respondent No. 4. In those proceedings, the DDA stated that the Petitioner had already been informed by a letter dated 25.9.1989 to get its case sponsored by the Directorate of Education for being considered for allotment of a plot for a nursery school. In view of the said statement, by an order dated 24.3.2004, a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 662/2000 holding that it was not required to be entertained. It was further directed that: However, if the petitioner approaches the DDA with the requisite recommendation/sponsorship, the DDA shall consider its case in accordance with law.
4. It is stated that the Petitioner challenged the said order dated 24.3.2004 by way of a SLP (Civil) 18712/2004 in the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and the said SLP was dismissed on 27.1.2006. Thereafter the Petitioner on 10.2.2006 made a detailed representation referring to a note of Shri Jagmohan, Hon'ble Minister for Urban Development dated 2.12.1999 which had opined that the allotment of nursery school sites for purposes other than those specified in lay-out plan would not be in public interest and should cease forthwith. The prayer of the petitioners in their representation dated 10.2.2006 was:
That in the circumstances, we would humbly request you to kindly look into the matter and withdraw the allotment dated 25-9-97 of the land measuring 1000 Sq. Mtr. In Gulmohar Park, New Delhi to `Kalashram' for the purpose of Dance and Drama Institute and allot the said site for the establishment of a Nursery school as intended and envisaged in the approved layout plan of Gulmohar Park, New Delhi.
5. The said representation was disposed off by the DDA by the impugned order Dated 3.4.2006 passed by the Vice-Chairman, DDA (VC) the material portion of which read as under:
The allotment in favor of Kalashram was challenged by way of civil writ petition No. 662/2000 and the orders passed by the learned Single Judge has attained finality as the Supreme Court has declined to interfere in the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court and dismissed the Special Leave Petition of the Association.
There is a concluded contract between the Kalashram and DDA as right in favor of Kalashram has already been created on receipt of payment and the delivery of physical possession on 21-11-1997. The right of Kalashram thus cannot be taken away by withdrawing the allotment as represented by the Association.
In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, I do not find any ground for withdrawing the allotment of 1000 sq. mtr. land in favor of Kalashram as represented by the Association. Therefore, the representation of Association is hereby rejected. The Association may be informed accordingly. Simultaneously, our Standing Counsel, Shri Anil Sapra, Advocate be also informed about this decision so that the same may be brought into the notice of Hon'ble High Court.
6. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order dated 3.4.2006 petitioners have filed the present writ petition. While directing notice to issue on 31.7.2006, this Court directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the title, possession and state of construction existing on the site. It recorded the contention of the Petitioner that the DDA had ignored the direction dated 3.3.2006 in WP(C) No. 3192-94/2006 filed by the Petitioner requiring DDA to take into consideration the Note dated 2.12.1999 of the Urban Development Ministry.
7. The principal contention of Mr. Rajiv Kumar Ghawana, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that the impugned order dated 3.4.2006 passed by the DDA makes no reference to the Note dated 2.12.1999 of the Hon'ble Minister for Urban Development which had been directed to be considered by the DDA by the Order dated 3.3.2006 of this Court. Accordingly, he submits that the impugned order is unsustainable in law, and the DDA should be required to reconsider the matter in the light of the order dated 3.3.2006 of this Court.
8. Appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 4, Mr. Atul Chitale, the learned Counsel submits that the allotment in favor of the Respondent No. 4 was already made in 1997 and possession was handed over upon Respondent No. 4 making full payment. The Minister's note dated 2.12.1999 was not specific to the allotment of Respondent No. 4 and in any event was made after the allotment in favor of Respondent No. 4. He accordingly submits that the allotment in favor of Respondent No. 4 cannot be interfered with at the instance of the Petitioners, particularly when the same relief was rejected by this Court by the dismissal of the earlier Writ Petition (Civil) No. 662/2000 filed by the Petitioners. It is submitted on behalf of the DDA that no illegality has been committed by it in making the allotment in favor of Respondent No. 4, and a similar plea of the Petitioners already stood rejected by this Court by the earlier order.
9. To this Court it appears that the Respondents are justified in contending that the prayers made by the writ petitioners here already stand rejected by the Division Bench of this Court by the Order dated 24.3.2004 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 662/2000. The rejection of the said writ petition meant that the Division Bench of this Court had negatived the Petitioners' challenge to both the notification dated 20.9.1995 of the Central Government as well as the challenge to the allotment in favor of Respondent No. 4 pursuant to the said notification. The last line of that order which permitted the Petitioners to make a representation to the DDA for considering its case in accordance with law was not meant to permit the Petitioners to raise the very contentions which had been rejected by the Court by the dismissal of the writ petition in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 662/2000. It only meant that the Petitioners could have sought for the allotment of some other land, if available and subject to the requirements of the law. Instead, what the Petitioners appear to have done, is to re-agitate the issue which already stood covered by the Order dated 24.3.2004 of the Division Bench of this Court. This was clearly impermissible and not intended by the said order.
10. The Order dated 3.3.2006 of the learned Single Judge of this Court requiring the DDA to take into account the note dated 2.12.1999 of the Minister of Urban Development, has to be seen in the light of the fact that the said note was not specific to the allotment of the Respondent No. 4. Moreover, the said note was issued more than 2 years after the allotment made in favor of Respondent No. 4. That note is of a general nature and does not advert to the notification dated 20.9.1995 issued by the Central Government, the challenge to the validity of which was negatived by this Court and which has not been withdrawn or cancelled by the Central Government, at least till such time the allotment was made in favor of Respondent No. 4.
11. The mere fact that the impugned order dated 3.4.2006 passed by the DDA does not refer to the note dated 2.12.1999 of the Minister of Urban Development, cannot make any difference to the fact that the challenge to the validity of allotment in favor of Respondent No. 4 already stood negatived by this Court by its Order dated 24.3.2004 rejecting the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 662/2000. The Order dated 3.3.2006 certainly does not permit the Petitioner to re-agitate the same issue all over and over again either before the DDA or before this Court.
12. For all of the above reasons, this Court finds no merit in the writ petitions and they are dismissed as such. The application also stands disposed of accordingly.