K. Ramamoorthy ( 1 ) THE Little Angels Public School Society is the writ petitioner. The petitioner prays for quashing the demand made by the Delhi Development Authority (the second respondent) in its letter dated 6. 11. 1991. It is stated that the petitioner is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The petitioner has to own a building for the purpose of running a school for imparting education as envisaged by the object of the Society. The petitioner applied to Delhi Development Authority (the second respondent) for allotment of a plot of land. ( 2 ) ON 28. 3. 1988 the Deputy Director, Directorate of Education, Delhi, in response to the petitioner s letter it is stated that the case of the petitioner had been sponsored and recommendations had been made to the second respondent,. The petitioner gave an undertaking in the following terms: It is undertaken on behalf of the Society that Society will be willing to pay premium Rs. 8 lacs per acre plus annual ground rent thereon as prescribed by the Government. ( 3 ) BY letter dated 28. 10. 1988 the Delhi Development Authority wrote to the petitioner in the following terms: With reference to your letter No. dated on the above subject, I am directed to inform you that the rates for allotment of institutional land have since been revised by the Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development. The revised rates for South Delhi/west Delhi/north Delhi/east Delhi is Rs. 2,37,5000. 00 per acre. You are therefore, advised to augment the funds to the tune of Rs. 19,00,000. 00 and submit a Bank certificate to this effect within 15 days of the date of issue of this letter to enable this office to process the case. ( 4 ) BY a letter dated 1. 5. 1989 the Deputy Director (Institutional) wrote to the petitioner stating that he has decided to allot on perpetual lease hold basis a plot of land measuring two acres (50% for school building and 50% for play ground) for running Middle School at Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. The petitioner wad required to communicate acceptance and deposit a sum of Rs. 24,34,375. 00 towards the cost of land and Rs. 59,375. 00 towards the ground rent for the period of one year and Re. 1 p. a. as nominal ground rent for the play ground area. The petitioner wad required to communicate acceptance and deposit a sum of Rs. 24,34,375. 00 towards the cost of land and Rs. 59,375. 00 towards the ground rent for the period of one year and Re. 1 p. a. as nominal ground rent for the play ground area. The letter is Annexure- D. By a letter dated 3. 10. 1989 the third respondent. Deputy Director, wrote to the petitioner stating that actual area of land was handed over to the petitionerwas2. 14 acres (1. 07 acre for school and 1. 07 acres for play ground) and the petitioner should pay an additional amount of Rs. 1,70,408 / -. This letter is annexed with the petition as Annexure-E. The petitioner had paid this amount also. ( 5 ) ON 3. 11. 1989, (Annexure-F) the second respondent issued No Objection Certificate for getting the plan sanctioned. ( 6 ) THE DDA by letter dated 6. 11. 1991 informed the petitioner that the Government of India had fixed the rates of land for the period from 1. 4. 1989 to 31. 3. 1991. What was earlier fixed was provisional. Taking into account the amount already paid the balance payable was Rs. 9,60,725. 00. On 26. 11. 1991, the petitioner wrote to the Delhi Development Authority requesting it to give the basis on which how the initial cost was fixed and revised cost had been worked out. There was no response and therefore, the petitioner had to file this writ petition. ( 7 ) THE case of the petitioner is that the cost was fixed on no profit no loss basis because the allotment was for the purpose of running an educational institution The DDA or the Ministry of Urban Development (UOI) cannot unilaterally revise the cost. The petitioner would refer to the affidavit filed by the Under Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development in Anand Education Society v. DDA (CW No. 2653 /88) wherein according to the petitioner, itwas stated by the Union of India that no profit no loss rates were adopted for institutional allotment. The petitioner would refer to the affidavit filed by the Under Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development in Anand Education Society v. DDA (CW No. 2653 /88) wherein according to the petitioner, itwas stated by the Union of India that no profit no loss rates were adopted for institutional allotment. The petitioner has referred to Sec. 6 of the Delhi Development Authority Act, 1957 and the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 to show that the fixation of cost on no profitno losswas deliberately done for the allotment of land to social, cultural, religious and educational institutionswhich are registered Societies under no profit making organisation. According to the petitioner, the revision of cost by the DDA was not at all authorised. It was arbitrary and it was not warranted. ( 8 ) ON 28. 7. 1992 the DDA filed the reply. It is stated in the reply that there was no commitment to the petitioner and it was specifically stated in the allotment letter that/the price for the relevant year had not been fixed by the Central Government and the petitioner was called upon to give an undertaking that it would pay the balance price of the premium after the same was fixed by the Government and as and when demanded by the DDA/the DDA had to make the demand because the Government had revised die rates/according to the DDA, the cost fixed by the Government is far below the market rates. The present policy of the Government is to allot land to p rivate institu tions by charging p remi um of land after determining the various factors but on no profit no loss basis. 50% of the amount was for the school building and 50% of the land allotted was meant for the use of play ground and no premium is charged. A nominal ground rent of Re. 1 p. a. is charged. After the revision the petitioner was called upon to deposit further amount only with reference to the land for the building and for the land for play ground no charges are levied. The petitioner is a private institution and it cannot compare itself with the Government departments. A nominal ground rent of Re. 1 p. a. is charged. After the revision the petitioner was called upon to deposit further amount only with reference to the land for the building and for the land for play ground no charges are levied. The petitioner is a private institution and it cannot compare itself with the Government departments. The policy of the Government relating to the allotment of land to private institution had been changed and therefore the petitioner cannot make any claim as a matter of right that the Government cannot revise the rates. In any event, no assurance was given to the petitioner as stated by the petitioner. The DDA prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition. ( 9 ) THE petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply on 1. 8. 1992. On 19. 11. 1993, the Union of India filed the counter affidavit. The counter affidavit is filed by the Under Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development. The respondents have referred to the rules framed for the year 1990-91 and they had stated that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief. The Government had shown concession to the institution and the fixation of land as a part of socio economic act of the Government and the grounds raised by the petitioner are not at all sustainable in law. The first respondent had filed a notification dated 5. 9. 1991 issued by the government wherein schedule of market rates of land in Delhi had been fixed by the Union of India and according to the notification the rates are effective from 1. 4. 1989 to 31. 3. 1991. CIV. No. 3792/91 ( 10 ) RITNAND Balved Education Foundation (Regd.) has filed the above writ petition for quashing the letter dated 29. 10. 1991 issued by the DDA demanding further sum of Rs. 11,39,055. 00. ( 11 ) THE facts can tersely stated in the following terms. The petitioner School applied for allotment of land for the purpose of running a school. On 11. 10. 1989 the Delhi Development Authority as per there commendations made by the Ministry of Urban Development allotted two acres of land at Malviya Nagar Extension, New Delhi. 50% of the land was meant for construction of the school building while the remaining 50% was for play ground. The school was directed to pay at the rate of Rs. 28. 50 lacs per acre. 50% of the land was meant for construction of the school building while the remaining 50% was for play ground. The school was directed to pay at the rate of Rs. 28. 50 lacs per acre. The petitioner was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 29,21,251. 00 on account of cost of the land and Rs. 7,11,250. 00 on account of ground rent. Some other conditions were imposed by the DDA. In para 5a, it is stated the cost of land as demanded is provisional. The Society was to give an undertaking on Rs. 2. 00 stamp paper duly attested by the First Class Magistrate/notary Public to the effect that the difference in cost of land as and when decided by the Government of India and the DDA shall be payable by the Society. As per this, the Society gave an undertaking in an affidavit stating "that I on behalf of the Society do undertake that if there has been any price revisions in the cost of land, the Society will pay/ get the difference to/from Government of India/dda. " The affidavit is dated 27. 10. 1983. It was sworn to by Mr. Anand Chauhan, Hony. General Secretary or the petitioner Society. ( 12 ) ON 29. 10. 1991,the DDA wrote to the petitioner stating that the Govemment of India had now fixed the rates for the period from 1. 4. 1989 to 31. 3. 1991 and the land rate had been was fixed at Rs. 39 lacs per acre. The petitioner was directed to pay difference of Rs. 11,39,055. 00. The details are as under: ( 14 ) CHALLENGING this, the writ petition has been filed. The same ground taken in CW No. 3775/91 is raised. CM no. 3808/91: ( 15 ) ST. Tulsi Memorial Educational Society has filed the above writ petition praying for quashing the demand letter dated 29. 10. 1991. The facts necessary for deciding the point can be stated tersely in the following terms. The petitioner Society decided to open a school at Delhi and applied to the DDA for allotment of land. The case of the petitioner was sponsored by the Directorate of Education, Delhi State. After the petitioner complied with the formalities, on 4. 5. 1990 the DDA wrote to the petitioner stating that it had been decided to allot the land on perpetual lease hold basis, measuring 1. The case of the petitioner was sponsored by the Directorate of Education, Delhi State. After the petitioner complied with the formalities, on 4. 5. 1990 the DDA wrote to the petitioner stating that it had been decided to allot the land on perpetual lease hold basis, measuring 1. 5 acres (75 acre for school building and. 075 acre for play ground) for running Middle School at Vikaspuri, Delhi, on usual terms and conditions. In para 6 of letter dated 4. 5. 1990 it is stated "that the cost of land as demanded is provisional. The Society shall give an undertaking on Rs. 2. 00 stamp paper duly attested from 1st Class Magistrate/notary Public to the effect that the difference as cost of land as and when decided by the Govemment of India and DDA shall be payable by the Society". ( 16 ) ON 29. 10. 1991, the DDA wrote to the petitioner stating that the Government of India had now fixed the rates for the period from 1. 4. 1989 to 31. 3. 1991 and the land rate was fixed at Rs. 32. 50 lacs per acre. The petitioner was directed to pay the difference amount of Rs. 6,94,798. 00. The details are as under: ( 17 ) CHALLENGING this the writ petition has been filed. The ground of challenge is the same as in CW No. 3775/91 and it is not necessary to repeat the same. CW. No. 3952/91: ( 18 ) GARDEN School Education Society has filed the writ petition challenging the demand raised by the DDA in its letter dated 29. 10. 1991. Here also the facts could be stated shortly in the following terms. The aims of the petitioner are to provide best education and to produce well informed and self assured young men and women. The petitioner Society decided to open a school at Delhi and applied to the DDA for allotment of land. The case of the petitioner was sponsored by the Directorate of Education, Delhi State. After the petitioner complied with the formalities,on 16. 12. 1988 the DDAwrote to the petitioner stating that thegovemment of India had revised the rates for Delhi at Rs. 28 50 lacs. per acre and the petitioner should augment the funds to the tune of Rs. The case of the petitioner was sponsored by the Directorate of Education, Delhi State. After the petitioner complied with the formalities,on 16. 12. 1988 the DDAwrote to the petitioner stating that thegovemment of India had revised the rates for Delhi at Rs. 28 50 lacs. per acre and the petitioner should augment the funds to the tune of Rs. 7 lacs and submit a bank certificate to this effect within l5 days of the date of issue of the letter to enable the DDA to process the case, ( 19 ) BY letter dated 19. 6. 1989 the Deputy Director Institutional wrote to the petitioner stating that it had been decided to allot, on perpetual lease hold basis, a plot of land measuring 800 sq. mtrs. for running a Nursery School building at Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. It is stated in the letter that cost of land was provisional and the petitioner should give an undertaking that it would pay difference as and when demanded by the DDA. The petitioner was directed to communicate to the acceptance and the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,63,384. 00 on account of cost of land and Rs. 14,085. 00 on account of ground rent for a period of one year @ Rs. 11- and half percent on the premium amount. The petitioner made the deposit. The possession of the land was given to the petitioner on8. 11. 1989. The petitioner would appear to have made are queston 21. 3. 1991 for the issuance of No Objection Certificate. On 11. 4. 1991 the DDA issued a No Objection Certificate for getting the plan sanctioned. ( 20 ) 0n 29. 10. 1991. the DDA wrote to the petitioner stating that the Govemment of India had now fixed the rates for the period from 1. 4. 1989 to 31. 3. 1991 and the land rates was fixed at Rs. 39 lacs per acre. The petitioner was directed to pay difference amount of Rs. 2,27,961. 00. The details are as under: 1. Premium of land for the Rs. 7,85,785. 00 are measuring 815. 40 sq. mts. @ Rs. 39. 00 lacs per acre. 2. G. R. for one year @ 2% p. a. Rs. 19,645. 00 3. Licence fee of play ground Rs.- 4. Total = Rs. 8,05,430. 00 5. Less already paid. Rs. 5,55,469. 00 6. Net payable Rs. Premium of land for the Rs. 7,85,785. 00 are measuring 815. 40 sq. mts. @ Rs. 39. 00 lacs per acre. 2. G. R. for one year @ 2% p. a. Rs. 19,645. 00 3. Licence fee of play ground Rs.- 4. Total = Rs. 8,05,430. 00 5. Less already paid. Rs. 5,55,469. 00 6. Net payable Rs. 2,27,961/.- ( 21 ) CHALLENGING this, the writ petition was presented in this Court on 13. 11. 1991. The point raised is the same as in CW No. 3775 of 1991 and it is not necessary to repeat the ground of challenge. The petitioner had filed rejoinder reiterating the points urged in the writ petition. CWNo. 104/92 , ( 22 ) ST. George s Education Society has filed the above writ petition challenging the demand made by the DDA in his letter dated 5 12. 1991 for a sum of Rs. 11,31,111. 00. The facts necessary for the deciding the point could be stated shortly as under: On 12. 4. 1990, the DDA has made an allotment of land measuring 2. 10 acres to the petitioner, 50% of the land for the school building and other 50% for play ground. The petitioner was directed to communicate its acceptance and also deposit a sum of Rs. 30,67314. 00 towards cost of land and Rs. 74,813 / - on account of ground rent for the period of one year and Rs. 1 / - p. a. as nominal ground rent for the play ground. The petitioner deposit the sum of Rs. 30,67,314. 00 ( 23 ) BY letter dated 5. 12. 1991 the DDA sent a communication to the petitioner stating that the Government of India had revised the rate of land from 1. 4. 1989 to 31. 3. 1991 and the land rate was fixed at Rs. 39 lacs per acre. The petitioner was directed to pay the difference of Rs. 11,31,111. 00 - The details are as under : ( 24 ) CHALLENGING this the writ petition was presented on 7. 2. 1992. The same point raised in CW No. 3775/91 is urged in this writ petition. CW No. 1366/92; ( 25 ) SACHDEVA Educational Society has filed the writ petition seeking to quash the demand letter dated 9. 10. 1991 and for other reliefs. 2. 1992. The same point raised in CW No. 3775/91 is urged in this writ petition. CW No. 1366/92; ( 25 ) SACHDEVA Educational Society has filed the writ petition seeking to quash the demand letter dated 9. 10. 1991 and for other reliefs. The case of the petitioner is in the following terms: The petitioner made an application to the respondent for allotment of land in Paschim Vihar for running a Primary/middle School. The Director of Education by letter dated 7. 10. 1987 recommended the case of the petitioner for allotment. On 27. 3. 1991 the DDA allotted two acres of land; (one acre for school building and one acre for play ground) for running a school in Rajouri Garden,. Area, The provisional premium wasfixedatrs. 23. 751acsperacrewith annual ground rent at the rate of 21 % per annum on the total premium. Another one acre of playground the rent was fixed at Re. 1 per annum. On 9. 4. 1991, the petitioner society deposited a sum ofrs. 9 lacs. On 23. 4. 1991 further sum ofrs. 2 lacs was deposited by the petitioner. On 22. 4. 1991, the petitioner made a representation to the Lt. Governor praying for a direction to the DDA to permit the petitioner to pay the balance in instalment. On 23rd April, 1991, the petitionerwrote to the Deputy Director DDA stating that the local people informed the petitioner that the land allotted to them belonged to the Government of India and therefore wanted the DDA to verify the same. The petitioner also wanted extension of time for depositing the amount. On 10. 6. 1991 (Annexure P-5) wrote to the petitioner extending the time for paying 50% by 31. 5. 1991 and the entire balance by 30. 6. 1991 with interest @ 18% per annum. The DDA however stated that since 50% has been paid by the petitioner the balance of Rs. 12,34,376. 00 should be paid by 30. 6. 1991, ( 26 ) ON 9. 10. 1991 the DDA wrote to the petitioner stating that the Government of India had revised the rate for the land for the period from 1. 4. 1989 to 31. 3. 1991 @ 32. 50 lacs per acre the DDA demanded balance of Rs. 21,32,000. 00. On 11. 10. 1991 the petitioner again wrote to the respondent for extension of time. On 14. 10. 4. 1989 to 31. 3. 1991 @ 32. 50 lacs per acre the DDA demanded balance of Rs. 21,32,000. 00. On 11. 10. 1991 the petitioner again wrote to the respondent for extension of time. On 14. 10. 1991, the petitioner again wrote to the DDA stating that the Lt. Governor had called for the file and the same should be sent to the Lt. Governor. The petitioner requested that the till the matter is decided by the Lt. Governor the action proposed in letter dated 9. 10. 1991 may be kept in abeyance. According to the petitioner it had paid Rs. 14 lacs and not Rs. 12 lacs as mentioned by the DDA. Again on 12. 11. 1991 the petitioner wrote to the DDA making the same request. On 19. 12. 1991 the petitioner wrote too the DDA making a request that the petitioner may be permitted to pay the balance amount of Rs. 16 lacs in half yearly installments and the possession of the land may be handed over to the petitioner. By a letter dated 17. 12. 1991 the DDA wrote to the petitioner stating that the balance amount ofrs. 21,32,250. 00 alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the due dates should be paid by 31. 12. 1991 failing which action will be taken as per the rules. ( 27 ) ON 19. 12. 1991 the petitioner again made a request to the Lt. Governor for payment of the amount in half yearly instalments. On 30. 12. 1991 the petitioner wrote to the DDA for the payment of the cost in easy instalments. On 10. 3. 1992 the Joint Director (Instl.) wrote to the petitioner informing it that the Lt. Governor had re jected the request made by the petitioner and the petitioner should pay the entire balance premium of Rs. 19,52,250. 00 with interest @ 18% per annum by 31. 3. 1992. ( 28 ) ON 14. 3. 1992 (he petitioner Society wrote to the DDA repeating the request to fix the rate of land at Rs. 9. 50 lacs per acre. Thereafter the petitioner had filed the writ petition challenging the demand on the same grounds mentioned in CW 3775 91. CW No. 1817/92: ( 29 ) CRESCENT Public School Society has filed the writ petition seeking to quash the demand letter dated 13,8. 1991 and for other reliefs. 9. 50 lacs per acre. Thereafter the petitioner had filed the writ petition challenging the demand on the same grounds mentioned in CW 3775 91. CW No. 1817/92: ( 29 ) CRESCENT Public School Society has filed the writ petition seeking to quash the demand letter dated 13,8. 1991 and for other reliefs. The case of the petitioner could be related in the following terms: ( 30 ) THE Directorate of education sponsored the case of the petitioner by letter dated 14. 3. 1989. The petitioner School obtained permission under Rule 44 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973. By letter dated 23. 4. 1991 the DDA allotted the land measuring 6199. 00 sq. mtrs. (2324. 63 for building portion and 3874. 37 sq. mtrs for play ground) for running a Middle School adjacent to the Railway Colony Society in Pitampura on usual terms/conditions. The rate fixed was Rs. 19 lacs per acre with annual ground rent Re. 1 per acre for School building and 0. 92 acre for play ground @ Rs. 19 lacs per acre. for running a school at Pitampura Delhi. The provisional premium was fixed at Rs. 19 lacs per acre with annual ground rent at the rate of and half per cent on the total premium. ( 31 ) THE petitioner was informed that the rate fixed was provisional and the society should give an undertaking as in other cases. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 11,18,700. 00. The petitioner gave an undertaking on 24. 04. 1991. The relevant part of the undertaking reads as under under: Now, therefore, the allottee hereby agrees and undertakes to. pay such amounts of money as are demanded by the Delhi Development Authority/lessor/ (President of India) on the basis of the registered rates as determined by the Central Government under Rule 5 of the Delhi Development (Developed Nazul Land) Rule, 1981. The allottee further undertakes that in case of default in payment by the allottee of the revised amount as demanded by the Delhi Development Authority/ Lessor (President of India) on the basis of rates determined by the Central Government under Rule -5 referred to above, the Lessor/delhi Development Authority shall be at liberty to recover the same as arrears of land revenue or/and cancel the allotment without any compensation or any other amount whatsoever to the allottee. The petitioner was given possession. ( 32 ) ON 13. The petitioner was given possession. ( 32 ) ON 13. 8. 1991, the DDA wrote to the petitioner stating that the Government of India had now revised the ratio of middle school is 50% for school building and 50% for the play ground. The DDA has demanded the balance of Rs. 3,72,896. 00 and the detail of which is as under : ( 33 ) CHALLENGING this, the writ petition was presented on 11. 5. 1992 contesting the same points urged in CW No. 3775/91. CWNo. 1818/92: ( 34 ) M. M. School Society has filed the writ petition seeking to quash. the demand letter dated 7. 4. 1992 and for other reliefs. The case of the petitioner is in the following terms. The Directorate of Education sponsored the case of the petitioner by letter dated 13. 3. 1987. The petitioner School obtained permission under Rule 44 of the rules framed under the Delhi School Education Act, 1973. By letter dated 11. 5. 1989 the DDA allotted the land measuring 1. 92 acres, one acre for School building and 0. 92 acre for play ground @ Rs. 19 lacs per acre. for running a school at Pitampura Delhi. The provisional premium was fixed at Rs. 19 lacs per acre with annual ground rent at the rate of two and half per cent per annum on the total premium. ( 35 ) THE petitioner was informed that the rate fixed was provisional and the Society should give undertaking as in other cases. Para 5 of the letter reads as under: The cost of land as demanded is provisional and therefore, the Society shall give an undertaking on Rs. 2. 00 stamp paper duly attested from 1st Class Magistrate/notary Public to the effect that the difference of cost of land at the rates as may be decided by the Government of India/dda will be paid by them on demand. ( 36 ) THE petitioner had paid a sum ofrs. 10 lacs on 25. 5. 1989 and Rs. 9 lacs on 29. 12. 1989. In the writ petition though the petition would admit that it had paid the money as demanded, would not refer to the undertaking. The petitioner has proceeded on the basis that it has not given any undertaking. 10 lacs on 25. 5. 1989 and Rs. 9 lacs on 29. 12. 1989. In the writ petition though the petition would admit that it had paid the money as demanded, would not refer to the undertaking. The petitioner has proceeded on the basis that it has not given any undertaking. In the reply the DDA has stated that the petitioner had given an undertaking and that tactual position is not denied by the petitioner in its rejoinder. Therefore, the fact that the petitioner had given an undertaking cannot by disputed by the petitioner. On 30. 10. 1990 the petitioner was put in possession of the land. The petitioner was requested the DDA to issue No Objection Certificate for construction of building. The petitioner came to know that the Government had changed the policy and has decided that 50% of the allotted land is for the school building and other 50% was for the play ground against the earlier ratio 40% for school building and 60% for play ground. ( 37 ) ON 7. 4. 1992, the DDA wrote to the petitioner stating that the Government of India had fixed the rates for the period from 1. 4. 1989 to 31. 3. 1991 and the land rates was fixed at Rs. 26 lacs per acre. The petitioner was directed to make this difference of Rs. 04,58,178. 00. The details are as under: ( 38 ) CHALLENGING this, the writ petition has been filed. The point raised is the same as in CW No. 3775/91. CW No 1826/92 and CW No. 4000/92: ( 39 ) BAL Shekshik Avam Bodhik Vikas Samiti has filed the writ petition for quashing the fixation of cost of land from Rs. 19 lacs per acre to Rs. 26 lacs per acre. The petitioner did not have a building of its own and, therefore, applied for the allotment of a plot for establishing a new school from Class I to VIII (without aid) in Sarswati Vihar Area, District North, Delhi. The Director of Education, Delhi Administration wrote to the petitioner on 1. 3. 1988 stating that the case of the petitioner was sponsored to Delhi Development Authority. The petitioner obtained the essentiality certificate on 18. 2. 1988. The petitioner was willing to pay a premium @rs. 8 lacs per acre and the petitioner gave an undertaking on 1. 3. 1988. On 4. 4. 3. 1988 stating that the case of the petitioner was sponsored to Delhi Development Authority. The petitioner obtained the essentiality certificate on 18. 2. 1988. The petitioner was willing to pay a premium @rs. 8 lacs per acre and the petitioner gave an undertaking on 1. 3. 1988. On 4. 4. 1991 the petitioner was informed by the DDA that the DDA had decided to allot land measuring 2000 sq. mtrs. for school and 3726. 15 sq. mtrs for playground @ Rs. 19 lacs per acre with annual ground rent @ two and half per cent per annum of the total premium. The petitioner was informed that the premium fixed was only provisional and the Society should give undertaking as mentioned in para 6 of the letter that it would pay the balance as may be demanded by the DDA on the basis of the rates determined by the Central Government. The petitioner deposited Rs. 9,38,967. 00 towards cost of land and Rs. 23,475. 00 towards the ground rent and Re. 1 ground rent. The petitioner gave an undertaking on 13. 5. 1991 agreeing to pay the demand that might be made on the basis of the rate that may be determined by the Central Government. The relevant part of the undertaking reads as under: Now, therefore, the allottee hereby agrees and undertakes to pay such amounts of money as are demanded by the Delhi Development Authority/lessor (President of India) on the basis of the revised rates as determined by the Central government under Rule-5 of the Delhi Development Authority (Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981. The allottee further undertakes that in case of default in payment by the allottee of the revised amount as demanded by the (President of India) Lessor/delhi Development Authority on the basis of rate: determined by the Central Government Rule -5 referred to above, the Lessor/delhi Development Authority shall be at liberty to recover the same as arrears of land revenue or/and cancel the allotment without any compensation or any other amount whatsoever to the allottee. ( 40 ) THE possession letter was issued on 4. 9. 1991 but actual possession was not given. Therefore, the petitioner was forced to file CW No. 3293/91. On 4. 11. 1991 this Court passed the following orders: 4. 11. 1991 C. W, No. 3293/91 and CM 5511/91: The matter had been passed over earlier on the request of Mr. ( 40 ) THE possession letter was issued on 4. 9. 1991 but actual possession was not given. Therefore, the petitioner was forced to file CW No. 3293/91. On 4. 11. 1991 this Court passed the following orders: 4. 11. 1991 C. W, No. 3293/91 and CM 5511/91: The matter had been passed over earlier on the request of Mr. V. K. Seth who appeared for the first respondent when both the officers as mentioned in the last order were also present. Mr. Seth had then requested for short adjournment. We, however, found that records have not been brought to the Court as per our orders. However, we acceded to the request only to the extent to pass over the matter. In this case the petitioner, which is a Society duly registered under the Societies Registration Act, was allotted certain land as per rules and the policy existing at the relevant time. On 13 May, 1991 the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 9,62,443. 00 as demanded by the first respondent for allotment of land for construction of a Middle School. It is stated that the petitioner also gave the requisite undertaking as required by the first respondent. On 4 Sept. , 1991 the first respondent wrote a letter to the petitioner stating that possession be taken of the allotted land from the Project Planner (Rohini), Delhi, on any working day between 3. p. m. to 5. p. m. except on Wednesday. The petitioner, on 30th September, 1991, wrote to the first respondent that in spite of as many as eight visits to the officer concerned possession has not so far been given. Since no reason was received, the petitioner filed this petition. We see no justification as to why the possession of the plot should not have been handed over to the petitioner. We may record, however, that earlier Mr. Seth has mentioned that there is some change in norms in July, 1991 on account of which perhaps possession was not given. We are unable to appreciate such an argument. In the circumstances, we will direct that possession of the plot in question may be given subject to further orders in the writ petition. The possession of the plot shall be handed over to the petitioner on llth November, 1991 at 3. p. m. Let there be no default this time. We are unable to appreciate such an argument. In the circumstances, we will direct that possession of the plot in question may be given subject to further orders in the writ petition. The possession of the plot shall be handed over to the petitioner on llth November, 1991 at 3. p. m. Let there be no default this time. A copy of this order will be given to learned Counsel for the parties dasti. The matter will now come up for hearing on 13th December, 1991. Answer to show cause notice and reply may be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, before the date fixed. ( 41 ) RULE DB was issued in CW No. 3293/91 on 20. 04. 1992 and that case is still pending about the fixation of rate and which is under challenge in CW No. 3775 / 91. The petitioner seeks to challenge the enhancement on the grounds mentioned in CW No. 3775/91. CW No. 4000/92: ( 42 ) BAL Shekshik Avam Boddhik Vikas Samiti has filed the writ petition who is (he petition in CW No. 1826/92. In that petition the challenged the enhancement of costs of land from Rs. 19 lacs per acre to Rs. 31. 20 lacs per acre by the DDA by its letter dated 4. 5. 1992 and challenging the letter dated 30. 9. 1992 by which the DDA called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the allotment should not be cancelled because the payment had not been made as undertaken by the petitioner. ( 43 ) THE case of the petitioner is as under. The petitioner applied for allotment of land. By letter dated 4. 4. 1991 the petitioner was directed to pay a premium @ Rs. 19 lacs per acre. The petitioner deposited Rs. 9,38,967. 00 towards the cost of land and Rs. 23,475. 00 + Re. 1 on account of ground rent on 13. 5. 1991. The possession was not delivered to the petitioner and the petitioner has filed the Writ Petition No. 3293/91. The possession was delivered as could be seen from the order dated 20. 4. 1992 in CW 3293/91. This Court passed the order that no objection should be given allowing 40% area for the construction of school building subject to the decision of the writ petition. The order was passed on 24. 5. The possession was delivered as could be seen from the order dated 20. 4. 1992 in CW 3293/91. This Court passed the order that no objection should be given allowing 40% area for the construction of school building subject to the decision of the writ petition. The order was passed on 24. 5. 1991 while the DDA when asked the petitioner to pay @ 8 lacs per acre. The DDA increased the rate to Rs. 19 lacs and the petitioner filed CW No. 1826/82 which has already been referred to. By a letter dated 4. 5. 1992 (which is not filed) the petitioner was informed to the DDA that the rate had been increased by Rs. 31. 20 lacs per acre and the petitioner was asked to pay the amount. The petitioner sent a reply on 22. 5. 1992 to the DDA requesting for the withdrawal of the demand. The petitioner later on received the letter dated 13. 9. 1992 by the DDA calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the allotment should not be cancelled. The petitioner sent its reply on 2. 11. 1992. On 9. 11. 1992 the petitioner had filed the writ petition challenging the action taken by the DDA on the same ground as in CW No. 3775/91. CW No. 3044/92: ( 44 ) SANATAN Dharm Adarsh Shiksha Sansthan has filed the writ petition challenging the letter dated 4. 8. 1992 by which the cost of land had been enhanced from Rs. 14. 50 lacs per acre to Rs. 19. 5 lacs per acre. ( 45 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner by a letter dated 4. 12. 1990 the DDA had proposed to allot 3. 40 acre (2 acre for school building and 1. 40 acre for play ground ). The rate fixed was Rs. 14. 50 lacs per acre as the petitioner was required to pay annual ground rent 2% per annum. The petitioner was informed that the premium demanded was provisional and the Central Government may revise the rate and the petitioner should give an undertaking that it will pay the cost as revised by the Centralgovernment. Thepetitionerpaidthewholeoftheamountby31. 12. 1990. 0n 11. 3. 1991 the possession was handed over tothe petitioner. On 25. 8. 1991 the petitioner was granted no objection certificate for getting the plan for building sanctioned. As per the Master Plan which came into force on 1. 8. Thepetitionerpaidthewholeoftheamountby31. 12. 1990. 0n 11. 3. 1991 the possession was handed over tothe petitioner. On 25. 8. 1991 the petitioner was granted no objection certificate for getting the plan for building sanctioned. As per the Master Plan which came into force on 1. 8. 1980 in respect of the secondary school 40% of the area was allocated for school building and 60% for play ground and the value was to be calculated only on that basis. By letter dated 2. 7. 1991 the petitioner wrote to the Ministry of Urban Development as against the cost of Rs. 18,95,940. 00 the petitioner had paid Rs. 29,41,820. 00 and thus the petitioner paid Rs. 10,45,880. 00 in excess. ( 46 ) BY a letter dated 4. 8. 1992 the DDA wrote to the petitioner stating that the amount payable by the petitioner was Rs. 39,97,500. 00. The petitioner had paid only Rs. 29,21,251. 00 and the petitioner should pay the balance of Rs. 10,76,249. 00. The petitioner had challenged the action of the DDA on the same ground as mentioned in CW No. 3775/91. CW No. 15/93: ( 47 ) BOSCO Educational and Welfare Society has filed the aforesaid writ petition. The petitioner has stated that after complying with all formalities applied for allotment of land. By letter dated 30. 5. 1991 the land measuring 7294. 7 sq. mtrs. (2735. 5 sq. mtrs. area for school building and 4559. 18 sq. mtrs. for the play ground) for running a middle school at Paschim Vihar, @ Rs. 23. 75 lacs per acre with annual ground rent at 2 and half % per annum. The petitioner was informed that the ratio of land of school building and play ground has since been revised to 40%: 60%. In Clause 6 it was made clear that. The premium of land as demanded is provisional. The Society shall give an undertaking to the effect that it will pay the balance premium of land, as may be demanded by DDA on the basis of the rates determined by Central Government. ( 48 ) IN para 29, the DDA has mentioned about the ratio in the following terms: The ratio of land for school building and play field was 50:50, but the ratio has since been revised to 40:60 i. e. 40 for School Building and 60 for play field. ( 48 ) IN para 29, the DDA has mentioned about the ratio in the following terms: The ratio of land for school building and play field was 50:50, but the ratio has since been revised to 40:60 i. e. 40 for School Building and 60 for play field. The ratio to be charged due to the change of ratio as mentioned above is under consideration with DDA/government of India. The Society, therefore, also requested to furnish undertaking to the effect that the Society will pay the difference on the basis of rates to be determined in this connection by the DDA/govemment of India. ( 49 ) THE petitioner had given an affidavit as required by the DDA undertaking to pay the difference in the cost of land as and when determined by the Government of India. The DDA by letter dated 7. 9. 1992 called upon the petitioner to pay a further sum of Rs. 19. 72. 165. 00. The details are as under: ( 50 ) THEPETITIONER was also informed that the ratio of building area and the play ground had been fixed at 50%: 50% and the value for the premium was accordingly changed. The petitioner has challenged this action of the DDA and the Government on the same ground as mentioned in CW. 3775/91. The petitioner had given undertaking as required by the DDA and the grievance of the petitioner is also that the ratio in the building area and the play ground cannot be unilaterally altered by the respondent. CWNo. 770/93: