Civil Appeal No. 2143 of 2007. Case: Institute of Law Vs Neeraj Sharma. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | Civil Appeal No. 2143 of 2007 |
| Judges | Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya and V. Gopala Gowda, JJ. |
| Issue | Punjab Development Regulation Act, 1952; Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19, 226; Allotment of Land to Educational Institutions (Schools) Rules |
| Judgement Date | September 19, 2014 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Judgment:
V. Gopala Gowda, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the two separate impugned orders dated 14.2.2005 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 6916 of 2004 by both the members of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh and against the order dated 26.04.2006 passed in Civil Misc. No. 5016 of 2005 and Civil Misc. No. 6173 of 2005. The brief facts of the case are stated hereunder:
2. The Appellant-Institute of law was allotted the land measuring 28,376.23 sq. yards (5.75 acres) in Sector 38-A in the Union Territory of Chandigarh at the rate of Rs. 900/- per sq. yard by the administration of Union Territory of Chandigarh. The rate was fixed by the Chandigarh Administration vide its Notification No. 31/1/100-UTFI (4-2002/1823) dated 7.3.2002 issued under the Punjab Development Regulation Act, 1952 fixing the land rates for allotment to educational institutions in the Union Territory of Chandigarh. The allotment of land was made in favour of Appellant-Institute for 99 years on lease hold basis with the condition that the initial lease period will be 33 years and renewable for two like periods only if the lessee continues to fulfil all conditions of allotment.
3. The Respondent No. 1, Neeraj Sharma, filed a Writ Petition No. 6916 of 2004 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh questioning the legality and validity of the allotment of land involved in this case urging various grounds.
4. On 14.2.2005, the Division Bench of the High Court, consisting of the then Chief Justice and a puisne Judge, by two separate but concurring orders disposed of the writ petition cancelling the allotment of land and directing the Union Territory of Chandigarh to take necessary corrective steps in the matter in consonance with the constitutional philosophy of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and further directed the Union Territory of Chandigarh to take policy decision for allotment of educational institutional sites in favour of eligible persons so as to ensure that the allotments are made objectively and in a transparent manner. After delivering the separate concurring orders, however, the puisne Judge, on the post judgment script, specified that there was no agreement on certain paragraph Nos. 10, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the order passed by the then Chief Justice.
5. Aggrieved by the orders, the Appellants filed the applications being Civil Misc. No. 5016 of 2005 and Civil Misc. No. 6173 of 2005 Under Rule 31 of Chapter 4(F) of the High Court Rules and Orders read with Clause 26 of the Letters Patent, urging that the matter be referred to another Bench or the full Bench for adjudication on the points of difference.
6. The learned nominated Judge of the High Court disposed of the Civil Misc. Application Nos. 5016 of 2005 and Civil Misc. No. 6173 of 2005 vide order dated 26.4.2006, holding that there was no point of difference between the Judges of the Division Bench on the question of maintainability of the writ petition and the locus standi of the writ Petitioner. It was held by him that although different reasons have been recorded by the members of the Division Bench, the conclusion recorded by them on the issue of maintainability of the writ petition was the same. It was further held that both the orders reveal a common object i.e. the cancellation of the allotment of land made in favour of the Appellant-Institute. The learned Judge has further clarified that a process of auction by necessary implication requires invitation to all eligible prospective allottees through public notice which will be in conformity with the constitutional philosophy Under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Having clarified in the aforesaid terms, the learned Judge dismissed both the applications.
7. The correctness of both the separate orders dated 14.02.2005 delivered by the Division Bench and the order dated 26.4.2006 of the learned nominated Judge hearing Civil Misc. Nos. 5016 and 6173 of 2005 are under challenge in this appeal filed by the Appellant-Institute, raising certain substantial questions of law.
8. It was contended by Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, the learned senior Counsel for the Appellant-Institute that the learned nominated Judge has erred in not appreciating the separate orders passed by the two learned Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court, who have given separate and distinct orders, which are absolutely conflicting in nature and had no commonality at all. The learned Judge has failed to appreciate that even the 'post judgment script', one of the learned judge has clearly spelt out the differences of opinion between the two learned Judges and on this basis alone the matter ought to have been referred to a larger bench.
9. It was further contended that the High Court ought to have noticed that the land involved in this appeal had been allotted to the Appellant-Institute after proper scrutiny and on the published and notified rates of the land with a condition for specific utilization of the land on lease hold basis and that none of the town planning was affected by the allotment of land in question in favour of the Appellant-Institute since the area of land in question is situated in the institutional area where educational institutions are functioning.
10. It was further contended that the High Court has gravely erred in not dismissing the writ petition on the basis of lack of locus standi of the writ Petitioner who has filed the writ petition for personal interest for the reason that a residential site was not allotted to him by the Administration of Union Territory of Chandigarh.
11. The High Court has further erred in holding that the Appellants are influential persons, therefore, the land was allotted to them, although no basis whatsoever has been shown in the impugned judgments.
12. The High Court has erred in not appreciating that the allotment of land in favour of the Appellant-Institute was made as per regular procedure adopted and being followed by Administration of Union Territory of Chandigarh for the last more than 50 years and there was no deviation whatsoever from the said procedure in allotting the land in favour of the Appellant-Institute which is also non-profitable institute.
13. It is further contended that the land is not auctioned by the Chandigarh Administration but it has allotted it to qualified persons/institutions on the basis of the social and economic needs of the city and society. Further, the allotment of land for the purposes of establishing educational institutions has restrictions on the transfer as well as usage and therefore, it is different from the general land rates (viz. commercial and residential) which have no such restrictions and are freely marketable.
14. It is submitted that the land was allotted with certain conditions, (a) on leasehold basis initially for 33 years (b) non transferable directly or indirectly and (c) usage was only for law institute. The Appellant-Institute deposited 25% of the lease amount with the administration of Union...
To continue reading
Request your trial