9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Enforceability of agreement dated 12.1.1996. 2. Application of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. 3. Validity of actions taken by LDA and Nazul Officer in compliance with the High Court's order dated 4.5.2009. Summary: Enforceability of Agreement Dated 12.1.1996: The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was correct in rejecting the prayer for a mandamus to enforce the agreement dated 12.1.1996 between the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) and City Montessori School (Respondent No. 1). The Court noted that Respondent No. 1 had failed to pay the balance amount of the bid within the stipulated period, leading to the cancellation of the bid. Despite the Governor's subsequent order to restore the plots and accept the balance amount in installments, the Court held that this did not create an enforceable right for Respondent No. 1. The agreement contained a stipulation that failure to pay the installments would void the agreement, which Respondent No. 1 did not comply with, thus terminating the agreement. Application of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009: The Supreme Court scrutinized whether the High Court could invoke the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (the 2009 Act) to grant relief to Respondent No. 1. The Court found that the 2009 Act does not provide for the allotment or sale of land to educational institutions. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in ordering the transfer of the plot to Respondent No. 1 based on the 2009 Act, especially since Respondent No. 1 was a defaulter and the writ petition was filed after a significant delay of 13 years. Validity of Actions by LDA and Nazul Officer: The Supreme Court addressed whether the High Court erred in quashing the actions taken by LDA and the Nazul Officer in compliance with the High Court's order dated 4.5.2009. The Court noted that the garden lease for plot No. 92A/C had expired in 1968, and the plot was not renewed. LDA had accepted the bid from Respondent No. 1 and delivered possession, making the subsequent actions by the Appellants to claim the plot an abuse of the legal process. The High Court's decision to quash the actions taken for converting the leasehold rights into freehold rights was upheld. Conclusion: The Supreme Court partly allowed Civil Appeal No. 10181 of 2011 by setting aside the High Court's direction to hand over possession of plot No. 92A/C to Respondent No. 1 on payment of the current market price. The decision to quash the actions taken by LDA and the Nazul Officer in compliance with the High Court's order dated 4.5.2009 was upheld. Civil Appeal No. 10180 of 2011 was dismissed. Both the Appellants and Respondent No. 1 were directed to deposit costs of Rs. 10 lakhs each with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Respondent No. 1 was ordered to hand over possession of the plot to LDA, which was instructed to dispose of the plot by public auction.
|
