SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. - (1.) A number of educational institutions filed writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before this Court aggrieved by the non- allotment of land to them at pre-determined rates under the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the ,,said Rules). Such petitioners included higher and technical institutes, schools and even hospitals. The common case made out was that their applications for allotment of Nazul land at pre-determined rates was at advanced stage after due clearance but on the eve of proposed allotment the policy was changed and the land was now sought to be disposed of only by way of public auction, which would imply much higher rates rather than the pre- determined rates.
(2.) WE may note at this stage that the said Rules have seen various amendments, i.e. the position prevalent prior to 2002, amendments made effective from 5.7.2002, amendments made effective from 9.12.2004 and amendments made effective from 19.4.2006. The said Rules have been framed under the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the ,,said Act) and Section 22 of the said Act provides for the developed and un-developed land in Delhi to be placed at the disposal of the DDA by the Central Government, which is known as Nazul land. We may add that the last amendment to the said Rules was carried out post the judgement rendered by the learned single Judge of this Court, which has been impugned in the present LPA since the policy decision taken by the DDA on 15.12.2003 to dispose of Nazul land only by auction was held contrary to Rule 5 of the said Rules and was, thus, declared illegal and void. The lacuna found in the said Rules by the said judgement whereby societies registered under the Societies Registration Act were not to be covered by the policy decision of 15.12.2003 was sought to be got over by the last set of amendments. The challenge laid to the last set of amendments made effective from 19.4.2006 has been repelled by this Court in WP (C) No.2459-60/2005 titled Bhagwan Mahavir Education Society (Regd.) & Anr. Vs. DDA & Ors. & other connected matters decided on 25.3.2011. It has been held that under the existing Rules, it is the mode of auction which is available for disposal of the Nazul land for higher and technical education institutes, schools and hospitals other than cases which fall within the domain of Rule 5 read with Rule 20 of the said Rules and the petitioners therein did not fall in that category.
(3.) WE had recorded in our order dated 5.5.2011 that the challenge laid by the DDA to the impugned judgement in LPA Nos.1114/2006, 1115/2006, 1117/2006, 1118/2006, 1123/2006, 1125/2006, 1640/2006, 1642/2006, 1646/2006, 1647/2006 was withdrawn by the counsel for the DDA as in his view our judgement in Bhagwan Mahavir Education Society (Regd.) & Anr. Vs. DDA & Ors. & other connected matters (supra) protected the interest of the DDA. In fact, other LPAs filed by private parties also stand withdrawn. The appellant herein being one of the original petitioners is, however, aggrieved by some part of the observations and directions in the impugned judgment dated 17.04.2006. It is the case of the appellant that the allotment in its favour already stood approved by the competent authority in June, 2004 and, thus, contend that the observations made in para 46 of the impugned judgment that the petitioners would be entitled to be considered for allotment cannot apply to the case of the appellant as it would amount to relegating the appellant to an original position of fresh consideration para materia to other cases while the distinguishing feature in the case of the appellant is that unlike the other cases where no consideration had taken place during the tenure of the old policy prior to 09.12.2004, the formal offer of allotment was made to the appellant on 07.07.2004.;