- (1.) The main question which arises for consideration in these appeals is whether, having rejected its prayer for issue of a mandamus to Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) to accept the total amount of sale consideration with regard to plot No.92A/C (Khasra No. 754), Mahanagar, Lucknow, the High Court could have relied upon the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short, the 2009 Act ) and granted relief to City Montessori School (respondent No.1 in Civil Appeal No.10181 of 2011 and the appellant in Civil Appeal No.10180 of 2011) in substantially similar terms. An ancillary question which needs determination is whether the High Court had rightly quashed the action taken by LDA and Nazul Officer, Lucknow in compliance of order dated 4.5.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.4085/2009.
(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as the appellants and respondent No.1. Background facts and details of the cases filed by the parties
(3.) 1. The Nazul Officer leased out plot No.92A, Mahanagar, Faizabad Road, Lucknow to Shri Moni Mohan Banerjee (hereinafter described as Shri Banerjee ) in 1958 for a period of 30 years with a right to seek two renewals of 30 years each. The terms of the lease were incorporated in the registered deed executed on 14.2.1959. 3.2. After about 3 years, the Nazul Officer granted lease of the adjoining plot bearing No. 92 A/C to Shri Banerjee for a period of 7 years commencing from 1.8.1961 for garden purposes. The registered lease deed dated 29.1.1964 executed between the Governor of Uttar Pradesh through the Nazul Officer and Shri Banerjee contained a stipulation that at the end of 7 years period, the lessee shall hand over possession of the plot to the Government. However, Shri Banerjee did not surrender the plot on or after 31.7.1968 and continued to occupy the same till January, 1996. 3.3. In 1992, the Government of Uttar Pradesh took a policy decision for conversion of leasehold Nazul lands into freehold and disposal thereof. This policy was circulated vide G.O. dated 23.5.1992 and was subsequently modified vide G.O. dated 2.12.1992 and G.O. dated 3.10.1994, paragraph 4 whereof postulated conversion of open Nazul land declared surplus under the Ceiling Act and horticulture/agriculture lease land into freehold and disposal thereof by auction or by inviting tenders. 3.4. In furtherance of the policy contained in G.O. dated 3.10.1994, LDA issued tender notice dated 24.11.1994 and invited bids for disposal of plots (open Nazul land which had been converted into freehold). However, before the bids received pursuant to notice dated 24.11.1994 could be accepted, the State Government changed the nature of some of the plots from residential to commercial. Therefore, LDA cancelled tender notice dated 24.11.1994 and invited fresh bids for eight plots including plot No.92A/C. 3.5. Shri Banerjee, who was illegally occupying plot No.92-A/C filed Suit No.285 of 1994 in the Court of Civil Judge, Lucknow with the prayer that G.Os. dated 2.12.1992 and 3.10.1994 may be quashed and LDA be restrained from dispossessing him pursuant to tender notice dated 24.11.1994. 3.6. Respondent No.1 filed Writ Petition No.11 of 1995 for quashing tender notice dated 20.12.1994 on the ground that the same was contrary to the Zonal Development Plan prepared under the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 and prayed that a mandamus be issued to the official respondents to accept the tenders submitted pursuant to notice dated 24.11.1994 and complete the formalities for the execution of the sale deed. Respondent No.1 also applied for stay but could not convince the High Court to entertain its prayer. 3.7. Faced with the possibility of losing an opportunity to get the plots in respect of which tenders were invited vide notice dated 20.12.1994, respondent No.1 submitted bids for four plots including plot No.92 A/C. The competent authority accepted the bids of respondent No.1. The latter deposited 25% of the bid money, i.e., Rs.7,40,700/- but did not pay the balance amount within the stipulated period despite notices dated 21.2.1995 and 8.3.1995 issued by LDA. Instead, Shri Jagdish Gandhi, Manager of respondent No.1 made representation for early delivery of possession of the plots and grant of permission to pay 3/4th of the price in six-monthly installments in accordance with G.O. dated 3.10.1994. LDA did not accept the request of Shri Jagdish Gandhi by observing that the facility of paying the price of plots in six-monthly installments is not available in the cases involving disposal of open Nazul land and garden leases. Shri Jagdish Gandhi then approached the Principal Secretary to the Governor and succeeded in persuading him to send letter dated 3.4.1995 to the State Government to instruct the officers of LDA to hand over possession of the plots and accept the balance amount in easy installments. The State Government forwarded that letter to LDA, which declined to accept the request made by Shri Jagdish Gandhi on the ground that the advertisement did not contain any such stipulation. Simultaneously, a decision was taken to cancel the bids and this was conveyed to respondent No.1 vide letter dated 14.6.1995. 3.8. Respondent No.1 did not challenge cancellation of the bids because its Manager was sure that he will be able to pull strings in the power corridors and get the desired relief. This is evinced from the fact that the representation made by him was accepted by none else than the Governor of the State, who passed order dated 17.12.1995 and directed that possession of the plots be handed over to the management of respondent No.1 and the balance amount be accepted in ten six-monthly installments with interest which may be fixed keeping in view the rates charged for the schemes framed by the Development Authority. 3.9. In furtherance of the direction given by the Governor, the State Government sent letter dated 12.1.1996 to the Vice-Chairman of LDA, which reads as under: JUDGEMENT_268_TLPRE0_2012_1.html;