Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 863 (DEL)

GANESH DAS CHAWLA CHARITABLE TRUST v. DDA

2007-04-25

S.MURALIDHAR

body2007
JUDGMENT Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.- This writ petition challenges a letter dated 29.11.1990 issued by the respondent Delhi Development Authority CODA) making a demand of Rs. 7,54,598/- towards premium of land and ground rent failing which the DDA would presume that the petitioner was not interested in the allotment of land made vide letter dated 28.4.1986. 2. The petitioner is stated to be a charitable trust registered as such with the object of providing free medical service. The petitioner was running a hospital in the name of Saroj Charitable Hospital at Chandni Chowk since 1973. It applied to the DDA for allotment of a plot of land for setting up a seventy bedded hospital on 10.6.1981. Pursuant to this application, the DDA allotted a land measuring one acre in favour of the petitioner by a letter dated 28.4.1986 on a perpetual lease basis. 4114 square yards of this plot was for setting up a hospital and 726 square yards for staff quarters. The cost of the land for the 4114 square yards for the hospital was at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per acre and the annual ground rent was 5% of the said amount. The remaining area of726 square yards was allotted at the rate of Rs. 81akh per acre with the annual ground rent at two and a half per cent of the premium. It was stated that if terms and conditions were acceptable, the petitioner should deposit within 60 days a sum of Rs. 1,28,500/- (Rs.8,500/- for land measuring 4114 square yards for the hospital and Rs. 1,20,000/- for land measuring 726 square yards for the staff quarters) within 60 days from the letter. The petitioner states that it deposited that amount on 30.4.1986 and took possession of the plot on 12.5.1986. 3. The site plans were submitted for approval of 15.2.1988. The no objection certificate (NOC) of the fire department and the Urban Arts Commission was submitted on 13.6.1990. Since the NOC issued by the DDA lapsed, it was stated that the site plan would be sanctioned only if the NOC was issued afresh. The DDA demanded that the petitioner give an undertaking to the effect that the petitioner would pay the cost of land as per the Order dated 3.12.1985 of the Central Government and composition fee for the belated construction. The DDA demanded that the petitioner give an undertaking to the effect that the petitioner would pay the cost of land as per the Order dated 3.12.1985 of the Central Government and composition fee for the belated construction. While the petitioner states that it was compelled to give this undertaking, the Respondent states that it gave that undertaking voluntarily. The undertaking by the affidavit dated 14.9.1990 was to the effect that "the trust will pay the enhanced cost of land and compensation fee for belated construction as and when decided/demanded by the DDA" 4. The petitioner states that the DDA did not sanction the plans stating that it would do so only if the petitioner submitted the registered lease deed. However, according to the petitioner, the DDA which was to complete the formalities, did not take steps to do so. On 29.11.1990 it issued the impugned letter calling upon the petitioner to pay the enhanced rate of Rs. 8 lakhs per acre for the entire land and annual ground rent at two and a half per cent. After adjusting the sum already paid by the petitioner, it was asked to pay Rs. 7,54,598/- within 30 days. Thereafter, on 8.12.1990 the petitioner filed the present petition. 5. The principal ground of challenge is that the DDA could not charge from the petitioner a rate for the land higher than what was prescribed by the Government of India for lands allotted for the purpose of setting up a hospital. It is submitted that by a circular dated 12.11.1981, the rate prescribed for the land allotted for hospitals, as a composite class, was Rs. 10,000/- per acre. While there was a distinction in respect of aided schools and unaided schools for the purpose of charging differential rates, there was no such distinction as regards hospitals. It is claimed that as regards hospitals, the rates prescribed earlier remained unchanged even by the subsequent circulars dated 4.1 0.1988 and 10.3.1989 and therefore the rate required to be charged for land for hospitals continued to be Rs. 10,000/- per acre. 6. The reply filed by the DDA indicates that under Rule 5 of the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 (Nazul Rules), the rates to be charged for land allotted there under were to be fixed by the Central Government. 10,000/- per acre. 6. The reply filed by the DDA indicates that under Rule 5 of the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 (Nazul Rules), the rates to be charged for land allotted there under were to be fixed by the Central Government. The notification dated 3.12.1985 issued by the Central Government, Ministry of Urban Development, fixed the rate at Rs. 10,000/- per acre for land for an aided hospital and Rs. 8 lakhs per acre and for unaided one. The relevant portion of the Circular dated 3.12.1985 reads as under: "To 1. The Land & Development Officer, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi. 2. The Vice-Chairman, Delhi Development Authority, Vikas Minar, I.P. Estate, NEW DELHI Sub.: Fixation of Prices of Government land for allotment to various social, cultural, Charitabale and other organisations in Delhi. Sir, I am directed to refer to this Ministrys letter No. J-22011/1/80LD(DOI) dated 29th April, 1983 and to convey the sanction of the President for the revision of the rate for allotment of land to recognised and unaided schools/colleges, cultural, social, charitable and religious institutions of non-profit making character, etc. from Rs. 6 lakh per acre to Rs. 8 lakh per acre w.e.f. 1.4.1985. 2. The non-profit, no-loss rate for transfer of land between the Government Departments in Delhi is also revised from Rs. 6 lakh per acre to Rs. 8 lakh per acre w.e.f. 1.4.85. 3. The rate for allotment of land (0 recognised and aided schools, hospital buildings, etc. shall continue to be Rs. 10,000/- per acre as laid down in this Ministrys letter No. J-22011/1/80-LD(DOI). 4. These orders will take effect from 1.4.85 and shall remain in force for a period of two years i.e. 31.3 .87. 5. L & DO/DDA should submit proposals to the Government for revision of no-profit, no-loss rate at least six months before 1.4.87 supported by the cost of development and acquisition. 6. This issue with the concurrence of the Ministry of Finance." 7. Accordingly it is submitted by the DDA that the demand raised by the impugned letter dated 29.11.1990 was valid. 8. In ground (H) of the writ petition the petitioner has stated as under: "That the Honble Court has admitted another writ petition being C. W.P. No. 2223/89 titled "Dr. v. N. Gupta v. DDA & Others", 63 (1996) DLT 739, wherein the same question has been raised. 8. In ground (H) of the writ petition the petitioner has stated as under: "That the Honble Court has admitted another writ petition being C. W.P. No. 2223/89 titled "Dr. v. N. Gupta v. DDA & Others", 63 (1996) DLT 739, wherein the same question has been raised. Rule was issued by the Honble Court in the said case on 31.8.90." 9. When this writ petition was listed first for hearing on 13.12.90 while directing notice to issue to the Respondent, this Court directed that the respondent "shall not pass any adverse order against the petitioner in respect of the allotment of land in question." Thereafter by an Order dated 31.1.1991 it was directed that the petitioner would deposit the amount demanded in the impugned letter without prejudice to its rights and contentions and if the petitioner ultimately succeeded, the amount would be refunded to it by the DDA with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. 10. Thereafter the writ petition was dismissed for non prosecution on 24.1.2003 and restored on 9.2.2007. Meanwhile, the Court was informed that Civil Writ Petition No. 2223 of 1989 had already been dismissed by a judgment dated 16.8.1996. Therefore by the Order dated 9.2.2007 the Counsel were directed to address arguments on whether the present writ petition stands covered by the said decision. Ultimately, orders were reserved on 2.4.20007. 11. A perusal of the judgment dated 16.8.1996 of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 2223 of 1989=63 (1996) DL T 739, Dr. V.N. Gupta v. DDA, shows that this Court has already held that the DDA had no discretion in the manner of fixation of rates for land allotment under the Nazul Land Rules and that it was the Government of India which was final authority to fix rates. The Court examined the applicability of the letter dated 10.3.1989 issued by the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India whereby it is made clear that the concessional rate of Rs. 10,000/- per acre applied only to aided hospitals under the control of local bodies and not to private hospitals. The Court negatived the challenge by the petitioner in that case to a demand made by the DDA of premium at a rate of Rs. 19 lakh per acre, for land allotted for the purpose of a hospital. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed. 12. The Court negatived the challenge by the petitioner in that case to a demand made by the DDA of premium at a rate of Rs. 19 lakh per acre, for land allotted for the purpose of a hospital. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed. 12. This Court finds that the present case is also fully covered by the said decision dated 16.8.1996 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 2223/1989. Nothing has been shown by the petitioner here to distinguish its case from the said case and why the present writ petition should not be disposed of in terms of that judgment. In fact, in the writ petition filed by the petitioner, the petitioner itself has unequivocally stated that the question raised in the aforementioned Writ Petition Civil No. 2223/1989 is similar to the question raised in the present writ petition. 13. In that view of the matter, following the decision dated] 6.8.1996 of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 2223 of 1989, the present writ petition is dismissed. The interim order stands vacated. If the petitioner has already paid the full amount pursuant to the order dated 31.1.1991, the DDA should complete the documentation subject to completion of formalities. Writ Petition dismissed.