Review Petition (Civil) Nos. 2381-2382 of 2012 in Civil Appeal Nos. 10180-10181 of 2011. Case: Smt. Khela Banerjee and Anr. Vs City Montessori School and Ors.. Supreme Court (India)

Case NumberReview Petition (Civil) Nos. 2381-2382 of 2012 in Civil Appeal Nos. 10180-10181 of 2011
CounselFor Appearing Parties: Shanti Bhushan, Sr. Adv., Irshad Ahmad, AAG, Sushendra K. Chauhan, R.P. Gupta, Manish Sharma, Abhishek Kumar, Raman Yadav, Shakil Ahmad Syed, Syed Ahmad Saud and Mohd. Parvez Dabas, Advs.
JudgesG.S. Singhvi and Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, JJ.
IssueRight to Education Act, 2009; President's Rule; Constitution of India - Articles 14, 356
CitationAIR 2013 SC 3776, 2013 (5) AWC 4595 SC, 2014 (1) RCR 47 (Civil), 2013 (8) SCALE 731, 2013 (7) SCC 615, 2014 (1) SCT 41 (SC)
Judgement DateJuly 10, 2013
CourtSupreme Court (India)


  1. These petitions have been filed for review of judgment dated 2.7.2012 passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 10181 and 10180 of 2011 arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 13585 and 22369 of 2011.

  2. For deciding the review petitions we may briefly notice the relevant facts.

    2.1 Plot No. 92A Mahanagar, Faizabad Road, Lucknow was leased out by the Nazul Officer to Shri Moni Mohan Banerjee in 1958 for a period of 30 years. After about 3 years, the Nazul Officer granted lease of the adjoining plot bearing No. 92A/C to Shri Banerjee for a period of 7 years for garden purposes.

    2.2 In 1992, the State Government decided to convert leasehold nazul lands into freehold and directed that the same be disposed of by auction or by inviting tenders.

    2.3 On 24.11.1994, Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) invited bids for disposal of plots including plot No. 92A/C. The review Petitioner gave bid for 4 plots including plot No. 92A/C, which were accepted by the competent authority. The review Petitioner deposited 25% of the bid money, but did not pay the balance price in terms of stipulations contained in the tender notice. Instead, the Manager of the review Petitioner represented for permission to pay the balance amount in six-monthly installments. LDA did not accept his request by observing that such facility is not available in respect of open nazul land and garden leases. Thereupon, the Manager of the review Petitioner approached the Principal Secretary to the Governor and succeeded in persuading him to send letter dated 3.4.1995 to the State Government to instruct LDA to hand over possession of plots and accept the balance amount in easy installments. LDA did not accede to the request made on behalf of the review Petitioner and cancelled the bids given by it.

    2.4 The Manager of the review Petitioner then approached the Governor, who passed order dated 17.12.1995 and directed that possession of the plots be handed over to the management and the balance amount be accepted in ten six-monthly installments.

    2.5 In compliance of the order passed by the Governor, the Vice-Chairman of LDA and the Manager of the review Petitioner executed agreement dated 12.1.1996, paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of which read as under:

  3. Whereas the payment of the installments as indicated above will be paid by the Second Party compulsorily by the prescribed time limit, failing which or in case of failure to deposit two consecutive installments, this Deed of Agreement will become void and the First Party shall be free to exercise its discretionary power to forfeit 1/4th of the total deposit and refund the remaining amount and the First Party, if desired so, shall be free to enter the land in question and shall have right to sell it in favour of any third party;

  4. Whereas 25% of the total tender amount has been paid by the Second Party and for rest of the 75% amount an agreement has been reached at between the parties. Possession of the land in question is being delivered by way of the instant Agreement. Therefore, according to the prevailing Greater Scheme (Mahayojana) of 2001, if the Second Party produces building map, it will be considered for approval, holding thereby that the possession of the land is with the Second Party, that the Nazul Land in question or building constructed on it can be transferred only when the entire tender/auction amount and the total expenditure payable by that time are cleared to the First Party. Sale Deed in respect of the Nazul Land will be executed on the stamp paper by paying required stamp fees. Stamp fee and other expenses will be borne by the Second Party;

  5. Whereas the Second Party shall deposit the remaining aforementioned tender amount in 10 half yearly installments under relevant accounts titled "0075 legal general services-105 Sale of Land & Property-03 lump-sum amount on converting Nazul land into freehold property" by the prescribed date by treasury challan/bank draft in main branch of...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT