Arun Kumar ( 1 ) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petitionchallenging the demand contained in the allotment-cum-demand letter dated 4/03/1993 issued by respondent No. 1. By the said letter he respondent hasallotted 1. 5 acres of land to the petitioner for purposes of a middle school at Rohini,delhi. Out of this allotment 75 acre of land is meant for school building for whichpetitioner has been called upon to pay premium @ 45 lac per acre while for thereemaining land meant for playground. The petitioner has to pay ground rent @ Rs. 5000. 00 per year. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act,1860 with the object of imparting education. Towards this object the petitioner isrunning a School. The petitioner Society applied for allotment of Nazul land to thedirector of Education, Delhi, for construction of a new school building and aplayground for the students of the school. The application was made on 1 8/12/1986. Since allotment of Nazul land in Delhi rests with the Delhidevelopment Authority, the Director of Education sponsored the case of thepetitioner for allotment of land to the Delhi Development Authority vide its letterdated 5/02/1990. The Institutional Allotment Committee of the Delhidevelopment Authority recommended the case of the petitioner society on 1 1/07/1990 for allotment of land subject to availability of the land in the area of thepetitioner s choice. In the proforma of information furnished by the petitionersociety it had given the choice of the locality where the land was required as (1)Lawrance Road; (2) Anywhere at Lawrance Road. Thereafter on 16/08/1990the petitioner made enquiries from the Delhi Development Authority about furtheraction in the matter. It appears that land was not available in the locality of thepetitioner s choice. Ultimately the petitioner by its letter dated 21/02/1991requested for allotment of land at any other site. The Delhi Development Authoritywas able to find that land could be allotted to the petitioner in the Rohini area. Fromthe additional affidavit filed on behalf of the Delhi Development Authority on 1 3/09/1993 it appears that thereafter the file was sent to the Lt. Governor,delhi, who is also the Chairman of the Delhi Development Authority for hisapproval for allotment of land to the petitioner society in the Rohini area. The filewas received from the Lt. Governor by the Delhi Development Authority on 6/11/1991 after the approval of the Lt. Governor. Governor,delhi, who is also the Chairman of the Delhi Development Authority for hisapproval for allotment of land to the petitioner society in the Rohini area. The filewas received from the Lt. Governor by the Delhi Development Authority on 6/11/1991 after the approval of the Lt. Governor. According to the Delhidevelopment Authority in view of the change in locality, re-sponsorship from thedirectorate of Education, Delhi Administration, Delhi was required as per Rules. It was only on 18/05/1992 that the Directorate of Education re-sponsored thecase of the petitioner for allotment of land in Onkar Nagar or Keshav Puram. Thepetitioner society, however, by its letter dated 23/06/1992 requested forallotment of land in Rohini. The Delhi Development Authority by its letter dated 9/07/1992 sought comments of the Directorate of Education on this request ofthe petitioner society. The comments from the Directorate of Education werereceived on 20/08/1992 by the Delhi Development Authority whereafter thecase was again sent to the Vice-Chairman, Delhi Development Authority and thelt. Governor of Delhi for their approval. The approval for allotment of land to thepetitioner society at Rohini was received on 8/02/1993. In pursuancethereof the allotment-cum-demand letter was issued to the petitioner on 4/03/1993. ( 3 ) THE petitioner has challenged this allotment-cum-demand letter dated 4/03/1993. ( 4 ) DURING the course of hearing of the petition the challenge was confined tothe following grounds:- (I) the increase in the rate of premium of land demanded from thepetitioner is arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory; (ii) the delay on the part of the Delhi Development Authority in processing the case of the petitioner for allotment of land in its favour has ledto the petitioner being charged higher rates; (iii) the revised rate being charged from the petitioner is not applicable tothe land in Rohini, where petitioner has got the allotment. ( 5 ) REGARDING the first point, the case of the petitioner society is that severalother societies who had made similar applications for allotment of land forpurposes of schools, alongwith the petitioner, or nearabout the time the petitionermade its application, were- allotted land at much cheaper rates whereas thepetitioner has been asked to pay at revised rates which are very high. The petitionerhas given instances of various other societies in this connection. The petitionerhas given instances of various other societies in this connection. The point ofdiscrimination does not stand scrutiny in view of the fact that the allotment infavour of the petitioner society has been made on 4/03/1993 whereas in caseof other societies, particularly the societies whose instances have been cited by thepetitioner, allotment had been made much before. The petitioner has not pointedout a single instance wherein an allotment made on or about 4/03/1993,different rates have been charged. It is the case of the respondent Delhi Development Authority that for Nazul land the rates charged are as notified by the Centralgovernment from time to time and that the Delhi Development Authority has nosay in the matter of fixation of rates. The rates charged from the petitioner societyare as per notification of the Govt. of India issued on 3/03/1993. ( 6 ) IN this connection our attention has been invited to Rule 5 of the Delhidevelopment Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Nazul Land Rules ). The said rule provides as under:- "rules of premium for allotment of Nazul land to certain public institutions. The Authority may allot Nazul land to schools, colleges, universities, hospitals, other social or charitable institutions, religious, political, semi-politicalorganisations and local bodies for remunerative, semi-remunerative or unremunerative purposes of the permit and ground rent in- force immediatelybefore the coming into force of these rules, or at such rates as the Centralgovernment may determine from time to time. " ( 7 ) THE land rate charged from the petitioner is on the basis of rate determinedby the Central Govt. and applicable at the relevant time. The other Societies whoseinstances have been cited were charged land rates on the same basis and as. per therates prevailing at the time of allotment in their favour. Accordingly we. find nosubstance in the contention of the petitioner that the rate charged by the respondentfrom the petitioner for the land allotted to it is arbitrary, illegal or discriminatory. ( 8 ) NEXT it is urged on behalf of the petitioner society that the petitioner madeits application for allotment of land for school on 18/12/1986 and it is thedelay on account of the respondents which has resuited in petitioner having been called upon to pay at such a high rate. ( 8 ) NEXT it is urged on behalf of the petitioner society that the petitioner madeits application for allotment of land for school on 18/12/1986 and it is thedelay on account of the respondents which has resuited in petitioner having been called upon to pay at such a high rate. In other words according to the petitionerif the petitioner s application had been expeditiously dealt with, the petitionerwould have been required to pay at a much lesser rate. ( 9 ) AS already pointed out, the Delhi Development Authority has filed anadditional affidavit on 13/09/1993 as per direction of this Court toexplain how the petitioner s file was dealt with. The learned Counsel for the Delhidevelopment Authority has drawn our attention to certain relevant rules of thenazul land rules. Rule 4 provides that the Delhi Development Authority may allotnazul land to individuals, body of persons, public and private institutions etc. etc. As per Rule 5, the Delhi Development Authority may allot Nazul land to schools,colleges, universities etc. etc. According to Rule 20, the allotment of land to publicinstitutions under Rule 5 is subject to certain conditions. For purposes of thecontroversy in the present case it will be worthwhile to reproduce Rule 20. 20. Allotment to certain public institutions. (1) No allotment of Nazul land to public institution referred to in Rule 5shall be made unless, (a) according to the aims and objects of that public institution, (i) it directly subserves the interests of the population of the Unionterritory of Delhi; (ii) it is generally conducive to the planned development of the Unionterritory of Delhi;it is apparent from the nature of work to be carried out by that public institution,that the same cannot, with equal efficiency, be carried out elsewhere than in thatpart of Union Territory. . (b) it is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21of 1860) or such institution is owned and run by the Government or anylocal authority, or is constituted or established under any law for thetime being in force; (e) it is of non-profit making character; (d) it is in possession of sufficient funds to meet the cost of land and theconstruction of buildings for its use; and (e) allotment to such institution is sponsored by a Department of the Delhiadministration or a Ministry of the Central Government. " ( 10 ) THE provisions of Rule 20 appear to be mandatory. " ( 10 ) THE provisions of Rule 20 appear to be mandatory. As per Sub-rule (l) (a) (i), the public institution seeking allotment of Nazul land must be onesubserving the interest of the population of the Union Territory of Delhi. As persub-rule (l) (iii), it should also be apparent from the nature of work to be carried outby that public institutions that the type of work for which allotment of land issought cannot be carried out with equal efficiency elsewhere than in that part of theunion Territory where allotment is sought. This sub-rule shows the importancebeing attached to the area where the allotment of land is being sought by a publicinstitution. Before the land is allotted it has to be assessed that the nature of workto be carried out on the land will be conducive for the needs of the area concerned. Sub-rule (e) requires that the allotment of land has to be sponsored or recommended by the Delhi Admn. Therefore, sponsorship of land by the Directorate ofeducation becomes a mandatory requirement as per Rule 20. ( 11 ) THE question further arises as to whether when initially sponsorship wasmade in favour of the petitioner by the Directorate of Education on 5/02/1990 re-sponsorship was required? A perusal of Rule 20 shows that re-sponsorshipwould be necessary everytime the area or locality where the allotment of land issought is changed. The authorities have to assess the needs of the particular localityin relation to the nature of work or activity of the public institution which seeksallotment of land and only after such assessment the sponsorship has to be madeto the Delhi Development Authority for allotment of land. ( 12 ) IN this connection it is important to notice Rule 44 of the Delhi Schooleducation Rules. Rule 44 provides as under:- "44. Notice of intention to open a new school. (1) With a view to enabling the Administrator to arrange for the planneddevelopment of school education in Delhi, every individual, association of individuals, society or trust, desiring to establish a new school, not being aminority school, shall before establishing such new school, give an intimationin writing to the Administrator of his or their intention to establish suchschool. (1) With a view to enabling the Administrator to arrange for the planneddevelopment of school education in Delhi, every individual, association of individuals, society or trust, desiring to establish a new school, not being aminority school, shall before establishing such new school, give an intimationin writing to the Administrator of his or their intention to establish suchschool. (2) The intimation, referred to in Sub-rule (1) shall contain the followingparticulars, namely:- (a) the Zone in which the new school is proposed to be established, and theapproximate number of students likely to be educated in such school; (b) the stage of education intended to be imparted in the new school; (c) the number of schools of the intended stage in existence in the Zonewhere the new school is proposed to be established and the populationof such Zone. (d) whether the person proposing to establish the new school have anyalternative Zone in view; and if so, the particulars of such alternativezone with respect to the matters specified in Clauses (a) and (e); (e) the particulars including measurements of the building or other structure in which the school is proposed to be run; (f) the financial resourses from which the expenses for the establishmentand running of the school are proposed to be met and whether anyapplication is proposed to be made for any aid; (g) the composition of the managing committee of the proposed newschool until the new school is recognised and a new managing committee is constituted in accordance with the scheme of management madeunder the Act. (h) the proposed procedure, until its recognition under the Act, for. theselection of the head of the school and other teachers and non-teachingstaff and the minimum qualifications for their recruitment; (i) the proposed scales of pay for the head of the school and other teachingand non-teaching staff until the school is recognised under the Act. (j) admission, tuition and other fees which would be levied and collecteduntil its recognition under the Act, from the students of the proposednew school. (k) any other facility which is proposed to be provided for the students ofthe proposed new school. (j) admission, tuition and other fees which would be levied and collecteduntil its recognition under the Act, from the students of the proposednew school. (k) any other facility which is proposed to be provided for the students ofthe proposed new school. (3) The Administrator may, after considering the particulars specified in theintimation given to him under Sub-rule (2) and after making such inquiries ashe may think fit, inform the person or persons by whom the intimation wasgiven to him whether or not opening of the proposed new school would be,in his opinion, in the public interests. Provided that the Administrator shall, if he is of opinion that the number of schoolsexisting in the Zone where the new school is proposed to be opened is sufficient tomeet the needs of that Zone, inform the person or persons by whom the intimationwas given to him that theopening of the new school in such Zone would be againstthe public interest and may indicate, to such person or persons, any other Zonewhich, in his opinion, needs the establishment of a new school, and thereupon itwould be open to such person or persons to open a new school in the Zone indicatedby the Administrator. " ( 13 ) THUS whenever a new school is to be opened an intimation in writing ofsuch intention has to be sent to the Administrator by the body which seeks to opena new school. The intimation is required to give, among other things, (a) particulars regarding the Zone in which the new school is proposed to be established andthe approximate number of students likely to be educated in such a school; (b) thestage of education intended to be imparted in the new school; (e) the number ofschools of the intended stage in existence in the Zone where the new school isproposed to be established and the population of such Zone. It is on the basis of thisinformation/particulars that the Administrator makes up his mind as to whetherthe new school is allowed to be established in the concerned Zone. The Administrator has to assess whether sufficient schools are available in a Zone or not. It is on the basis of thisinformation/particulars that the Administrator makes up his mind as to whetherthe new school is allowed to be established in the concerned Zone. The Administrator has to assess whether sufficient schools are available in a Zone or not. If ina particular Zone there already a sufficient number of schools, the Administratormay inform the body which proposes to open a new school that it would not be inpublic interest to do so and may suggest any other Zone where in his opinion newschools need to be established. It is thereafter that a new school will be opened inthe Zone indicated by the Administrator. A combined reading of the abovestatutory provisions shows that it is a very important consideration for allowing anew school to be opened that the area in which it is opened requires augmentationof the facilities for education to students. ( 14 ) IN the present case in the first instance the Director of Education sponsoredthe case of the petitioner for Lawrance Road area thereafter when no land wasavailable in that area the petitioner was informed accordingly and the petitionerexercised its choice for Rohini area where land was available. In view of the changeof locality/zone, re-sponsorship became necessary and there was nothing wrongin the Delhi Development Authority in asking for re-sponsorship by the Directorof Education. Everytime the Zone is changed the Administrator or the Director ofeducation has to reassess the feasibility or suitability of establishing a new schoolin the new Zone. ( 15 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that in view of theuse of the word "anywhere" in the minutes of the Institutional Allotment Committee dated 11. 7. 1990 and in para 4 of the Sponsorship letter dated 5. 2. 1990 there wasno need for responsorship and for the time spent in seeking responsorship, thed. D. A. should be held re-sponsible. This contention does not stand scrutiny. Firstly, it will be seen from the Profoma of information filled by the petitioner thatthe petitioner has used the word "anywhere" alongwith Lawrance Road, i. e. Lawrance Road or anywhere at Lawrance Road. The letter of Director ofeducation dated 5. 2. 1990 forwards the petitioner s application to the D. D. A. alongwith its recommendation. Therefore, action by the D. D. A.-has to be on thebasis of the petitioner s application which says anywhere at Lawrance Road. The letter of Director ofeducation dated 5. 2. 1990 forwards the petitioner s application to the D. D. A. alongwith its recommendation. Therefore, action by the D. D. A.-has to be on thebasis of the petitioner s application which says anywhere at Lawrance Road. Itappears that the person filling the blanks on the cyclostyled letter of the Director ofeducation dated 5. 2. 1990 did not fill the complete legend in para 4 and shortened"anywhere at Lawrance Road" to just "anywhere". Secondly, the minutes of theinstitutional Allotment Committee what is to be seen is the actual resolution whichmerely says "the Committee recommended the allotment of land subject toavailability in the area of choice". Thus one has to again go back to the actualapplication of the petitioner to find the area of its choice. Thirdly, the provisionscontained in the statutory rules referred to above are very clear and leave no scopefor such arguments. Sponsorship has to be in relation to an area or Zone andeverytime this is changed fresh sponsorship is required. Before sponsoring a casethe Administrator has to be satisfied about the requirements of Rule 44 of the Delhischool Education Rules. ( 16 ) UNDER these circumstances the respondents cannot be blamed for thedelay in finally allotting the land to the petitioner society. Moreover it has to benoted in this connection that the revised land rates notified by the Govt. on 3/03/1993 are applicable with effect from 1/04/1992 and it cannot be said thatthe demand-cum-allotment letter was issued just a day after the revised rates wereannounced. ( 17 ) THIS brings us to the last point urged on behalf of the petitioner society tochallenge the impugned demand. ( 18 ) IT is submitted that in the schedule attached to the notification dated 3/03/1993 wherein revised land rates have been given, Rohini, i. e. the Zone inwhich land has been allotted to the petitioner society does not find mentionanywhere and, therefore, the Delhi Development Authority could not charge thepetitioner society @ Rs. 45 lacs per acre. The rate of Rs. 45 lacs per acre has beennotified for Zone III, i. e. West Delhi and Zone IV, i . e. North Delhi. Various localitiesfalling in these Zones have been given in the lists. However, Rohini does not findmention either in Zone III or Zone IV. 45 lacs per acre. The rate of Rs. 45 lacs per acre has beennotified for Zone III, i. e. West Delhi and Zone IV, i . e. North Delhi. Various localitiesfalling in these Zones have been given in the lists. However, Rohini does not findmention either in Zone III or Zone IV. According to the petitioner it could at bestbe charged on the basis of rates applicable for Zone VI comprising of Narela andother outlying colonies for which the rate is Rs. 27. 5 lac per acre. It is correct thatin the lists of localities for Zone III and Zone IV for which the applicable rate is Rs. 45 lacs per acre i. e. the rate being charged from the petitioner society, Rohini is not mentioned. However, the learned Counsel for the Delhi Development Authorityhas placed On record a project report regarding Rohini Project according to whichthe land in Rohini project is North-West Delhi adjacent to Pitam Pura and Shalimarbagh. Another brochure relating to Rohini Project shows that the Rohini project isnorth-West Delhi within a distance of 15 Kms. from Connaught Place and incontinuation of Shalimar Bagh and Pitam Pura residential schemes. ( 19 ) OUR attention has also been drawn to the Scheme of Conversion fromleasehold system into free hold announced by the Delhi Development Authority inapril 1992, a copy of which has been placed on record by the petitioner societyitself. Accord ing to that scheme Rohini falls in North Delhi, Zone IV. Thus it cannotbe said that Rohini falls inouter Delhi, i. e. Zone VI. Rohini appears to be very muchpart of North-West Delhi and is certainly not an outlying area of Delhi. Therefore,even if Rohini as such has not been specifically mentioned in the schedule of ratesnotified by the Govt. of India, the rates applied for Rohini by the Delhi Development Authority appear to be correct. FOR the above reasons we find no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed in limine.