Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Smt. Raj Kumari, SPE, Zone-24.

In the school office, we found Mr. R.B. Singh, Manager, Mrs. Divya, Headmistress and Mr. Omesh Kumar, Chairman of the Managing Committee present there. During the discussion it was conveyed to the undersigned by D.E. Officials that the main dispute was regarding the 1700 sq. yds. parcel of land earmarked for the playground.

3. The inspection was commenced at 11:30 am. I requested the School Manager to show the land in question. It was brought to our notice by the school management that the 1700 sq. yards land which was earlier arranged by them for playground on lease is not available now as the Lessor is not permitting the inspection of the said piece of land. Mr. R.B. Singh, Manager had also shown us a copy of the written communication from the Lessor informing the school management that they will not allow any further inspection of their land measuring 1700 sq. yds. Hence the said piece of land measuring 1700 sq. yds. was not shown to the inspecting team. The Manager further informed us that under these circumstances, the school management has arranged another piece of land measuring around 5000 sq. yards on lease which would be used as a playground for the school children. Then, he took all the members of the inspection team, in his vehicle, to the new location of the land measuring 5000 sq. yards which was approximately 1 km away from the main school building.

4. On inspecting the piece of land, it was found that after deducting out of the 5000 sq. yards land setbacks like broad passage to the parcel of land etc., around 4100 sq. yards rectangular area was available which was proposed to be utilize by them as a playground. The said parcel of land is surrounded by agricultural land on sides. On enquiring as to how the school children would access the playground situated far away from the main school building, the school management replied that they would use school buses to transport the school children to & fro and that it would take hardly 5 minutes in bringing the children to the playground by the buses. They also showed copies of the documents related to this land taken on lease, including the Lease Deed, GPA and Khatoni, in their favour.

16. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, insofar as the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue needs to be looked from the perspective of the order passed by this Court on March 27, 2015 whereby this Court has narrowed down the controversy is concerned, when the matter was listed on July 1, 2015 this Court had noted the fact that the land of the petitioner No.1 measuring 3580 sq. yds. is in three lots, which are at a distance from each other. The Court also observed that the role of the respondents was thus not confined merely to see whether the classrooms constructed are in order but also to see whether the classrooms constructed were conjoint to the existing structure/building. In fact on July 13, 2015, the issue that in terms of Rule 51 of the DSE Rules, 1973, the playground can be in the nearby locality was also argued, apart from the issue of class rooms which made this Court to issue notice. Further, I note the petitioners, through their Counsel on November 2, 2015 had represented to show the third parcel of land admeasuring 1700 sq. yds. Even this Court on February 17, 2016 directed the petitioner School to allow the Committee from Directorate of Education to inspect the plot of 1700 sq. yds. designated as playground. The said order was followed by order dated March 2, 2016. The said order was subject matter of an intra court appeal. Be that as it may, vide order dated May 16, 2016, this Court appointed a Local Commissioner for inspection and the Local Commissioner did inspect the land of 5000 sq. yds. which the petitioners intend to use as playground and filed his report. The aforesaid would reveal that the petitioners had never contested the orders passed by this Court from time to time for ascertaining the aspect whether the petitioner No. 1 is in possession of the required land and also in accordance with Rule 51 of DSE Rules, 1973. Further, it was during the inspection by the Local Commissioner, the petitioners represented that the land of 1700 sq. yds, which was earlier arranged by the petitioners for playground on lease is not available as the lessor is not permitting the inspection of the said piece of land. The said piece of land was not shown to the Commissioner. In fact, during inspection, the petitioners arranged for another piece of land admeasuring 5000 sq. yds. which was also inspected. It is to be seen whether this land along with other lands, referred above meets the requirement. Hence, the plea of Mr. Singh that issue is only with regard to two additional rooms is liable to be rejected.

17. In so far as the aspect whether petitioner fulfils the land requirement is concerned, this Court had noted that the petitioners have offered land in three parcels of 1080 sq. yds., 800 sq. yds. and 1700 sq. yds., which aspect was noted by this Court on July 1, 2015. Be that as it may I note the petitioners in their affidavits of rebuttal filed on 27 th January, 2016 have taken a stand that the total land area of the School is 1200 sq. yds. + 800 sq. yds. + 1700 sq. yds., i.e., 3700 sq. yds. which in excess of 2400 sq. meters. Without going into the issue whether the first parcel of land is 1080 sq. yds. or 1200 sq. yds., proceeding on a premise the School Management has arranged piece of land admeasuring 5000 sq. yds on lease, which could be used as a playground for the School children, the Commissioner has noted that after deducting, out of 5000 sq. yds land setbacks like broad passage to the parcel of land etc., around 4100 sq. yards rectangular area was available which was proposed to be utilized by them as a playground. It was also noted that the said land is surrounded by agricultural land on sides and on enquiry as to how the school children would access the playground situated far away from the main school building, the school management replied that they would use school buses to transport the school children to & fro and it would take hardly five minutes in bringing the children to the playground by the buses. The lease deed, GPA and Khatoni in their favour have been filed on record. I have seen the Lease Deed. The Lease Deed as placed on record (page 453) shows that the same has been executed between one Mr. Pawan Kaushik and the Rajdhani Educational Society as the lessee, whereby the lessor Pawan Kaushik intend to rent out an area of 5000 sq. yds of land to the second party i.e Rajdhani Educational Society for a period of 30 years. Suffice to state and as conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said Lease Deed is not registered. Such a document, i.e., an unregistered document would not create an interest in favour of the lessee Rajdhani Educational Society in view of Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. The said document cannot be read to mean that the School/Society has the land of 5000 sq. yds. for the purpose of playground. In the absence of which, the requirement of 2400 sq. meters of land has not been met by the petitioners.