Delhi Development Authority and Others vs Kalka Education Society and Another

A.K. Sikri, Acting Chief Justice

The appellants Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) impugn the judgment dated 9th February, 2010 of the Learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 23464/2005 preferred by the respondent Society. While issuing notice of the appeal the operation of the said judgment was stayed and remains stayed. The counsels have been heard. The facts are not in dispute. The respondent Society was vide letter dated 2nd January, 1986 allotted a plot of land ad measuring 3.95 acres at Alaknanda, Kalkaji, New Delhi for the purposes of establishing thereon a school. Possession of the said land was handed over to the respondent Society on 2nd May, 1991. However no lease deed executed in favour of the respondent Society. The writ petition aforesaid was filed by the respondent Society seeking mandamus for execution of the lease deed in its favour. Mandamus was also sought against the appellant NCTE to grant recognition to the respondent Society for conducting Elementary Teachers'' Education course on the said land.

The appellant DDA contested the writ petition pleading that the respondent Society besides setting up a Senior Secondary School on the said land and for which purpose the land was allotted, was also running B.Ed. course in the building constructed thereon and in which regard notices had been issued to the respondent Society and with which the respondent Society had failed to comply.

The respondent Society in rejoinder, while contending that it was under the policies of the DDA entitled to conduct B.Ed. classes also in the building constructed on the said land also contended that since notwithstanding the said notices, the appellant DDA had failed to take any action for the violation if any, it was not entitled to withhold execution of the lease deed for the said reason.

In the aforesaid scenario the Learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition as under:-

Taking into consideration that running of B.Ed. course in the school premises is not a question, which is to be decided by this Court, at this stage, the only question, which is to be decided is whether in the absence of any action taken by the respondent for an alleged breach committed by the petitioner with regard to the terms of allotment letter, can the DDA withhold execution of lease deed with respect to the allotment made in favour of the petitioner. The answer is to be in the negative in view of the fact that despite the show cause notice dated 18.08.2005, the DDA has failed to take any action against the petitioner. Accordingly, since the petitioner has made all the payments and also taking into consideration the minutes of the meeting dated 10.01.2006, letter of the Private Secretary to C.M. dated 27.06.2007, reply to the Right to Information query and the fact that the DDA has also not been able to render a satisfactory explanation as to why no action has been taken against the petitioner after the show cause notice was issued as far back as on 18.10.2005, DDA is directed to execute a lease deed in favour of the petitioner within a period of ten weeks from today. It is, however, made clear that execution of the lease deed will not be construed as breaches if having been condoned by the DDA. It is also clarified that this Order will not come in the way of the DDA to initiate such action as may be available to DDA in accordance with law for the breach committed by the petitioner including cancellation of the allotment.

Petition stands disposed of in above terms.

The contention in the appeal is that since the respondent Society is in breach of the terms and conditions of allotment, the appellant DDA could not have been directed to execute the lease deed in favour of the respondent Society. Though the respondent Society has also argued delay/failure on the part of the appellant DDA but we find that the complete payment of the premium for the plot in question came to be made by the respondent Society only in the year 2004; thereafter when the matter was examined by the appellant DDA for execution of the lease deed, breach aforesaid was found and regarding which correspondence was exchanged; soon thereafter the respondent Society filed the writ petition aforesaid and presumably the appellant DDA restrained from taking any further action during the pendency thereof. It thus cannot be said that there is any delay as averred. It is clear from the order of the Learned Single Judge also that opportunity has been given to the appellant DDA to take further action for the breaches alleged. In these circumstances, we are of the view that instead of giving direction to the appellant DDA to execute the lease deed, proper course of action would be to allow the appellant DDA to take decision on the said show cause notice in a time-bound period and execution of the lease deed be made dependant thereon. Accordingly, the impugned order is modified by directing the appellant DDA to take decision on the show cause notice dated 18.10.2005 within a period of two months from today. We make it clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the validity of the said show cause notice or whether the respondent Society is within its right to conduct the B.Ed. course from the said premises and for which purpose, the respondent Society had relied upon certain judgments of this Court and Circular of DDA, which are taken note of by the learned Single Judge as well. We also make it clear that if no decision is taken within two months, the appellant DDA shall immediately execute the lease deed. In case, decision taken is in favour of the respondent Society, in that event also, the DDA shall execute the lease deed within one month thereof, of course subject to respondent Society complying with all formalities. On the other hand, if the said decision goes against the respondent Society, it would be open to the respondent Society to challenge the said order as per law.

This appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.