A.P.CHOWDHRI, J. - (1.) BRIEF facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner Society constructed a Church Building after taking a piece of land from Chandigarh Administration on ninety-nine years lease some time in 1985. In 1989, the society started running a Primary School called the Chandigarh Baptist School. Over the years the strength of the school increased to about 700 students and in August, 1992, the Society applied for a six Kanal plot near the Church for the construction of a School building. On November 24,1992, the Chandigarh Administration required the petitioner-Society to submit audited accounts and documents to show that the school being run by it was a recognized one. The petitioner complied with the above by producing the audited accounts and a provisional recognition (Annexure -5 ). In about August, 1993, the petitioner-Society had some suspicion that the land for which they had made an application was being allotted to St. Xavier's School respondent No. 3. The petitioner-Society, therefore, made a representation (Annexure P-6) dated August 26, 1993. In November, 1993, the petitioner-Society learnt through an advertisement in the 'tribune' that respondent No. 3 had been allotted land. Accordingly, the present writ petition was filed challenging the action of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in arbitrarily ignoring the petitioner's application for allotment of six Kanals of land and also for the restraining respondent No. 3 from making any construction on the land in question.
(2.) SEPARATE written statements have been filed: one on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and the other on behalf of respondent No. 3. The main pleas taken by the Chandigarh Administration are that there was no notified Scheme governing the allotment of land to Societies like the petitioner and that the Administration had made no commitment to allot any such land at any stage. With regard to the existing school, it was stated that the land had been allotted to the petitioner for a Church vide lease (Annexure 'r-l') dated February 26, 1985. Running of school on commercial lines constituted a contravention of the terms of the lease and made the plot already allotted to the petitioner liable to resumption. With regard to respondent No. 3, it was stated that the said respondent applied in 1985 for a four acre plot. It was allotted land accordingly in July 1990 in Sector 25, near the cremation grounds. Respondent No. 3 made a request for change of site on the ground of its unsuitability. That request was considered and allowed and an area of about four acres (19194. 12 square yards) was allotted in Sector 44 on November 12,1993 vide lease deed Annexure 'r-3/1' and possession of the land was delivered to the said respondent. It was also stated that the petitioner's application for allotment of six Kanal plots was still under consideration and had not been finally disposed of. Replication was filed on behalf of the petitioner reiterating the pleas averred in the writ petition earlier.
(3.) THE motion Bench while admitting the petition directed by ex-parte order dated December 1, 1993 that construction be not raised on the disputed plot. Respondent No. 3 moved an application for vacation of the stay order and the stay was vacated by a learned Single Judge by order dated March 28, 1994, on the undertaking of respondent No. 3 to remove construction, if any, in the event of any portion of the land allotted to it being leased to the petitioner.;