Mount Carmel School Society v. D.D.A.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: S.B. Sinha
Harjit Singh Bedi
Judgment Date: 2007-12-14
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal dismissed with costs (Rs. 25,000).
Final Disposition: Appeal dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Mount Carmel School Society

Respondents

Delhi Development Authority (D.D.A.)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K.K. Rai
• Krishnanand Pandeya
• Bankey Bihari
• Ashwani K. G Sakhija
• S.K. Pandey

Counsels for Respondents

• V.B. Saharya (for M/s. Saharya & Co.)

Case Synopsis & Summary

Mount Carmel School Society challenged a Delhi Development Authority policy that, despite the Delhi Master Plan envisaging four acres for a senior secondary school, allotted only two acres. The appellant had sought four acres and claimed that the Institutional Allotment Committee had recommended four acres for it and for Shri Venkateshwara Educational Society; however, the authority adopted a policy to allot two acres. A series of writ petitions were filed; the High Court dismissed them, and the appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench. The appellant argued that the Master Plan provision for four acres and the prior recommendations created a right to four acres, and that the policy decision was discriminatory against it vis-a-vis other institutions. The Supreme Court analyzed whether the Delhi Master Plan required four acres and whether any four-acre allotment had been made after October 1999 when the policy was adopted. It found no evidence of four-acre allotments post-1999, and held the discrimination claim to be vague and not sufficiently particularized. The appellant did not file a review petition in the High Court. The Court concluded there was no merit in the appeal, dismissing it with costs of Rs. 25,000. The decision reflects deference to executive policy on land allotments and underscores the need for precise pleadings in discrimination claims.

Provisions of Law Cited

Constitution of India, 1950 Art. 226Societies Registration Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

A judge's record must be accepted as correct.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contended that the Delhi Master Plan contemplated four acres for running a senior secondary school. The Institutional Allotment Committee had recommended four acres for the appellant as well as the Shri Venkateshwara Educational Society, yet the DDA adopted a policy to allot only two acres. It was argued that this policy undiscriminately encroached upon the appellant’s rights by treating similarly situated institutions differently, violating the Master Plan and prior recommendations. The appellant urged that the Central Government’s records and the context of the recommendations should inform the policy, and that the Discriminatory claim, though raised, lacked proper specifics in the writ petition and no adequate reply was provided by the respondents. It was emphasized that the High Court failed to consider the record of the recommendations and that the appellant could have sought review; the absence of any four-acre allotments after October 1999 undermines the policy’s justification.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent-DDA defended the policy decision as a justified administrative measure taken in October 1999, after considering master plan norms and financial viability. It argued that no four-acre allotment had been made post-October 1999 and that the discrimination plea was vague and not supported by precise facts showing the appellant was singled out compared with others. The respondent asserted that the records show the policy decision was made with due consideration and that the Central Government’s prior positions on rates do not imply an unlawful reduction, and that the court should respect executive decisions absent demonstrable arbitrariness.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

A # MOUNT CARMEL SCHOOL SOCIETY _V._ ## D.D.A. ## DECEMBER 14, 2007 ## B [S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] _Urban Development-Allotment of land-Application filed by Appellant society before Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for_ c _allotment of four acres of land for running a Senior Secondary school -Policy decision taken by DDA to allot only two acres of land-Writ petition against the policy decision-Dismissed by Single JudgeJustification-Held, justified-After the policy decision in case of Appellant, DDA not shown to have allotted four acres of/and to any_ D _other similarly situated institution-Plea of discrimination raised in the writ petition absolutely vague-Constitution of India, 1950Art.226._ Appellant-society filed application before the Delhi E[Development Authority (DDA) for allotment ][of ][four acres ][ofland ] for running a Senior Secondary School. DDA took the policy decision of allotting only two acres of land even though the Institutional Allotmenit Committee constituted by it had earlier recommended allotment of four acres ofland. Writ petition filed againstthe policy decision was dismissed by Single Judge of High Court. Writ appeal F filed thereafter was also dismissed. It was contended before this Court that while in case of one Shri V cnkatcshwara Educational Society four acres ofland was directed to be allotted, Appellant was denied of a similar grant. G H Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The policy decision of the Authority which was impugned in the writ petition was taken in October 1999. It has not been shown before this Court that any allotment has been made in 876 ,,, MOUNT CARMEL SCHOOL SOCIETY _v._ D.D.A. 877 _r_ ... favour ofany society allotting land having an area of four acres, after A October 1999. [Para 11] [879-F] 1.2. Furthermore, the plea of discrimination raised in the writ petition was absolutely vague. Grounds taken in the writ petition in this behalf also did not specify that the appellant had been B discriminated against, _vis-a-vis_ the said Shri Venkateshwara Education Society or any other allottee. Details of the grantin favour of the said society was not furnished. In absence of any specific contention having been raised, it was not possible for the respondent to furnish any reply thereto. [Para 13] [879-G; 880-A-B] c 1.3. No argument also appears to have been advanced in this behalf before the Single Judge of High Court. The memo of writ appeal of the appellant was not supported by any affidavit affirmed either by one of its authorized representatives who was present in court or by the advocate appearing on its behalf, stating that the D contention in regard to the discriminatory treatment was raised before the Single Judge of High Court but was not dealt with. [Para 14] [880-C-D] 1.4. A Judge's record must be accepted as correct. Appellant, thus, could have filed an application for review before the Single E Judge of High Court. The same was not done. Therefore, the High Court cannot be said to have committed any error in passing the impugned judgment. [Paras 15 and 16] [880-D-E] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5944 of F 2007. From the final Judgment and Order dated 07.09.2005 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in LPA No. 404 of2003. K.K. Rai, Krishnanand Pandeya, Bankey Bihari, Ashwani K. G Sakhija and S.K. Pandey for the Appellant. V.B. Saharya (for M/s. Saharya & Co.) for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by H 878 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R. ' ·- ' ## A ## S.B. **SINHA, J.** 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order of a Division Bench of Delhi High Court dated 7.9.2005 passed in LPA No.404 of 2003. B 3. Appellant is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. It runs an educational institution. It applied for allotment of four acres of land for running a senior secondary school before the Delhi Development Authority. The Institutional Allotment Committee which was constituted by the Authority, made recommendations for allotment of four c[acres ][of ][land. ][Indisputably ][the ][competent ][authority ][of ][the ][DDA ][took ][a ] policy decision only to allot two acres ofland. 4. Severa! writ petitions were filed which by reason of the impugned judgment have been dismissed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court Before embarking on the questions raised before us, we may place on record that except the present appeal, other appeals were heard and dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court (Coram - Hon. B.P. Singh and P.K. Balasubramanyam, JJ). The said order, however, is not a reasoned one. D E 5 .. Mr. K.K. Rai, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of appellant, submitted that the factual scenario obtaining in the present appeal is different from the others, inasmuch as recommendations of allotment of four acres ofland were made both in its favour as also in favour of one Shri Venkateshwara Educational Society; but whereas in the case of F[the ][latter society ][four ][acres ][of ][land ][was ][directed ][to ][be ][allotted; ][the ] appellant was denied of a similar grant. 111e High Court, learned counsel argued, misdirected itself in passing the impugned judgment in so far as it failed to take into consideration that the said Shri Venkateshwara Educational Society was not a necessary G party in the writ petition as no relief was claimed against it, inasmuch as if the writ petition were to be allowed, the said society would not have suffered any prejudice. 't 'f 6. Mr. V.B. Saharya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the H[respondent, ][on ][the ][other ][hand, ][supported ][the ][impugned ][judgment. ] "\ _r_ # MOUNT CARMEL SCHOOL SOCIETY _v._ D.D.A. 879 [SINHA,J.] 7. The question which arose for consideration before the High Court was as to whether the Delhi Master Plan having provided for allotment of four acres of land for running of a secondary school, the Delhi Development Authority could take a policy decision of allotment only of two acres of land. 8. We have noticed hereinbefore that a large number of societies applied for allotment of land for setting up senior secondary schools. A recommendation had been made in favour of the appellant by the Institutional Allotment Committee on or about 23 .10.1998. Indisputably, similar recommendations had been made in favour of other societies as well, including the said Shri Venkateshwara Educational Society. Recommendations of the Committee, however, do not appear to have been approved by the authority. It furthermore appears that the appellant was asked to send its latest bank balance certificate and/or financial status. 9. The Lt. Governor, who is Chairman of the Society, had also D asked for certain clarifications pertaining to constructions of the school building. On or about 9.3.2000, a provisional allotment was made but, allegedly, the appellant society failed to furnish an undertaking within the . p~riod stipulated therefor. 10. Indisputably, the Vice Chairman of the Delhi Development[E ] Authority made recommendations for allotment of only two acres of land in favour of the appellant. Shri Venkateshwara Educational Society, however, was allotted a land measuring four acres of land way back on 25.8.1999. F 11. The policy decision of the Authority which was impugned in the writ petition was taken in October 1999. It has not been shown before us that any allotment has been made in favour of any society allotting land having an area of four acres, after October 1999. 12. We may furthermore notice that the plea of discrimination raised[G ] in the writ petition was absolutely vague as it was merely averred : "The petitioner also wrote to Respondent No. I on 24.03.2000 requesting for allotment of 1.6 hectares of land at the prevailing rate ofRs.30 lakhs per acre in 1996 when the application for land H [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R. _r_ ## 880 SUPREME COURT REPORTS A was made and other similarly situated institutions were allotted land ... " 13. Grounds taken in the writ petition in this behalf also did not speci~y that the appellant had been discriminated against, _vis-a-vis_ the B[said ][Shri ][Venkateshwara ][Education ][Society ][or ][any ][other ][allottee. ][Details ] of the grant in favour of the said society was not furnished. In absence of any specific contention having been raised, it was not possible for the respondent to furnish any reply thereto. 14. No argument also appears to have been advanced in this behalf c before the learned Single Judge. The memo of appeal of the appellant was not supported by any affidavit affirmed either by one of its authorized representatives who was present in court or by the advocate appearing on its behalf, stating that the contention in regard to the discriminatory treatment was raised before the learned Single Judge but was not dealt D[with. ] 15. A Judge's record, as is well known, must be accepted as correct. Appellant, thus, could have filed an application for review before the learned Single Judge. The same was not done. 16. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court cannot be said to have committed any error in passing the impugned judgment. E 17. A feeble attempt was made by Mr. Rai to contend that the Central Government also was of the opinion that the area to be allotted for senior secondary school cannot be reduced. The High Court, in this regard held : F "Equally importantly, the learned Single Judge has noted that tl1e official records of the Central Government dealing with the communications of DD A were produced before him. The nothings G in the tilt:, which were apparently perused by the learned Single Judge, show that the recommendations ofDDA were considered by the Central Government and thereafter finally approved for implementation. In view of this factual position, we are quite satisfied that the land rates were determined by the Central Government and were not fixed by DDA. There was no excessive H ,., 881 B C # MOUNTCARMELSCHOOLSOCIETYv. D.D.A. [SINHA,J.] delegation of power or responsibility on the part of the Central A Government and so this contention must be rejected." ... In view of the said findings of the High Court which, as noticed hereinbefore, have been accepted by this Court, we are not inclined to take a different view therefrom. 18. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in this appeal. _+_ It is dismissed accordingly with costs. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only). B.B.B. Appeal dismissed.