9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Allotment of land to the Sabha. 2. Rate of consideration for the land allotted. 3. Relevance of the Delhi High Court judgment in Lal Amarnath. 4. Maintainability of the writ petition. 5. Directions for reconsideration by the government. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Allotment of Land to the Sabha: The Sabha applied for land allotment to the Land and Development Officer (L&D.O.) for establishing a school. Initially, in 1963, 1.363 acres were allotted at Rs. 5000 per acre plus annual ground rent. Due to existing structures, possession was delayed. In 1967, another allotment letter was issued for the same rate, and the Sabha deposited Rs. 7,185. However, possession was still not delivered. In 1986, the L&D.O. proposed 2.15 acres at Rs. 8 lakhs per acre. A formal letter in 1990 confirmed this with a distinction: 1.363 acres at Rs. 5000 per acre and the additional 0.787 acres at Rs. 38 lakhs per acre. The Sabha deposited Rs. 10 lakhs but later contested the rate for the additional land. 2. Rate of Consideration for the Land Allotted: The dispute centered on the rate for the additional 0.787 acres. The High Court directed the government to charge Rs. 5000 per acre for the original 1.363 acres and Rs. 8 lakhs per acre for the additional land, contrary to the government's demand of Rs. 38 lakhs per acre. The Sabha argued that the enhancement to Rs. 38 lakhs was unreasonable and arbitrary. 3. Relevance of the Delhi High Court Judgment in Lal Amarnath: The Sabha relied on the Delhi High Court judgment in Lal Amarnath, which held that Nazul land allotted on a 'no profit no loss' basis to schools should not be charged at market rates. The Supreme Court found this judgment irrelevant to the present case, as the facts and terms of allotment differed significantly. The Sabha's acceptance of the 1990 terms (Rs. 38 lakhs per acre for additional land) was binding, and the High Court's judgment did not justify a change in stance. 4. Maintainability of the Writ Petition: The Supreme Court questioned the maintainability of the writ petition, noting that the Sabha had no statutory right to the allotment. The High Court did not address this issue, and the Supreme Court chose not to pursue it further due to lack of objection at the High Court level. 5. Directions for Reconsideration by the Government: The Supreme Court directed that the Sabha could approach the government to reconsider the terms of the allotment, given its charitable nature and the long-standing request for land. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment and left it to the Union of India and the L&D.O. to decide on any revision of the allotment terms. The Court emphasized the need for the government to review its policy on land allotment to ensure public interest and prevent profiteering by institutions. Conclusion: The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal by setting aside the High Court's judgment and directed the Sabha to seek reconsideration from the government. It also highlighted the need for stringent conditions and monitoring in land allotment to charitable institutions to ensure public interest is served. The status quo was to be maintained for six months.
|
