1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3864 OF 2009

Lovely Bal Shiksha Parishad ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Delhi Development Authority  & Anr.                            …Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL No.8701 OF 2009

M.C.D. ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Lovely Bal Shiksha Parishad & Anr.        …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) These  appeals  are  filed  against  the  common

final judgment and order dated 11.06.2004 passed

by the High Court of Delhi in W. A. No. 85 of 2004

2

and W. A. No. 532 of 2004 respectively whereby the

Division Bench of  the High Court  disposed of  the

appeals  filed  by  the  Lovely  Bal  Shiksha  Parishad

and  M.C.D.,  appellants  in  both  the  appeals  with

some  directions  in  modification  of  the  directions

given  by  the  Single  Judge  vide  order  dated

14.11.2003 in C.W.P. No.8272 of 2002.

Brief facts:

2) The  dispute  in  this  case  is  between  the

appellant-a  registered  Society  named-Lovely  Bal

Shiksha  Parishad,  Delhi  (Appellant  in  C.A.

No.3864/2009  and  respondent  in  C.A.

No.8701/2009)  and  M.C.D.,  respondent  No.  2  in

C.A.  No.3864/2009  and  appellant  in  C.A.  No.

8701/2009)  and  Delhi  Development  Authority

(DDA) (respondent No.1 in C.A. No.3864/2009).  It

is in relation to the land situated at Mayur Vihar

Phase-II, New Delhi.

3

3) In  the  year  1989,  the  DDA had  allotted  the

land  in  question  to  the  MCD  for  establishing  a

primary School.   Subsequently,  the allotment was

cancelled  and  then  the  DDA  allotted  2.47  acres

(approx.) of land in the same vicinity to the Lovely

Bal Shiksha Parishad (hereinafter referred to as “the

Society”) for establishing a Middle School.  

4) Later in 1998, the DDA withdrew the original

allotment made in favour of the Society and allotted

1.29  acres  to  the  Society  in  the  same  vicinity.

However, in the year 2002, the DDA allotted 1.40

acres  to  MCD,  which  was  a  part  of  the  land

originally allotted to the Society in the year 1998.

5) Since the lands allotted to the Society and the

MCD is in the same area and being contiguous to

each other, the  Society felt aggrieved of the decision

of DDA by which the DDA had allotted reduced area

as compared to what was originally allotted to the

4

Society  and  filed  a  writ  petition  (C.W.P.

No.8277/2002) against the DDA and MCD, seeking

quashing of the said decision before the High Court.

It was contested by DDA and MCD.

6) By order dated 14.11.2003, the Single Judge

disposed of the writ petition and issued mandamus

in  the  form  of  certain  directions  to  the  DDA  in

relation to allotted lands to the Society and MCD for

their compliance. Felt aggrieved by the said order,

the  Society  filed  writ  appeal  (85/2004)  and  the

M.C.D. also filed writ appeal (532/2004).

7) By  common  judgment/order  dated

11.06.2004,  the  Division  Bench  disposed  of  the

appeals with some directions in modification of the

directions issued by the Single Judge.  

8) Dissatisfied with the directions issued by the

Division Bench of the High Court, the Society and

5

the M.C.D. filed separate appeals by way of special

leave before this Court.

9) This Court on 03.08.2007 passed the following

order:

“Call  after  four  weeks.   In  the  meantime, Chief  Secretary,  MCD,  D.D.A.  and  M.C.D. shall  explore  the  possibility  of  finding solution the problems involved in the present case.  This exercise shall be taken because of the recurring nature of such problems.”  

10) Pursuant  to  the  aforesaid  order,  the  matter

was  examined  by  the  Chief  Secretary  of  the

Government  of  NCT  of  Delhi  after  calling  all  the

stakeholders with a view to explore the possibility as

to whether any amicable solution can be arrived at

between the parties and, if so, on what terms.  On

inspecting  the  site,  hearing  all  the  stakeholders’

views  and  examining  the  entire  issue,  the  Chief

Secretary was of the view that the parties are not

prepared to settle amicably.  He then submitted the

6

detailed report to this Court (Pages 99 to 103 of the

SLP paper book).  

11) The  Chief  Secretary,  in  his  report,  has

concluded in Paras 12 and 13 as under:

“12.  In short, I found that there was no room for  any  compromise.   In  view  of  the circumstances,  it  is  my recommendation to the  Hon’ble  Supreme  Court  through  this Report that it may be possible to resolve the issue by maintaining the present areas held by  the  two  contending  parties  for  the following reasons:

(a) The two areas are roughly equal in size as pointed out earlier;

(b) Under the MPD 2021, which is prevalent now,  for  a  Primary  School  the requirement  of  land  need  not  be  more than 0.4 hectares (1 acre).

13.   This  was  the  position  even  under  the Master Plan 1981-2001 during the currency of  which  the  DDA  had  made  various allotments at variance from the prescriptions therein.  I believe that both schools would be viable if the present area of 1.354 acres with Lovely Bal Shiksha Parisahd and 1.345 acres with MCD is maintained.”   

12) With the aforesaid background of the case, the

question arises as to what orders need to be passed

for the disposal of these appeals.

7

13) Having  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the

parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we

are  of  the  considered  opinion  that  the  report

submitted  by  the  Chief  Secretary,  set  out  above,

deserves  to  be  accepted  including  his

recommendations  contained  in  Paras  12  and  13

quoted above.  

14) This  we  say  for  the  reasons  that  firstly,  no

objections were raised by any of the parties to the

appeals to the report; secondly, in submissions also,

the report was not assailed by the learned counsel

on  any  grounds;  thirdly,  we,  on  perusal  of  the

report,  also  do  not  find  any  kind  of  illegality  or

irrationality  in  the  recommendations  given by  the

Chief Secretary; and lastly, it has come in the report

that the building is also built on the allotted land.  

15) In  our  view,  on  acceptance  of  the

recommendations of  the Chief  Secretary,  both the

8

parties-appellants in both the appeals (Society and

MCD) would be able to carry out their activities for

the benefit of public at large and we do hope that

both  will  continue  to  do  so  in  letter  and  spirit

because that is the object for which lands have been

allotted to them.  

16) In  view  of  foregoing  discussion,  we  do  not

consider  it  necessary  to  deal  with  any  legal

submissions on merits.   Indeed,  even the learned

counsel appearing for the parties did not address us

on the merits of the case.

17) In the light of foregoing reasons, the appeals

are  disposed of  in  terms of  the  recommendations

contained in Paras 12 and 13 of the report of the

Chief Secretary quoted above.  

18) Let  the  consequential  orders  of  allotment

or/and its confirmation, as the case may be, should

be  passed  by  the  DDA  in  relation  to  respective

9

allotment of lands to the parties concerned as per

their  allotment  policy  and  keeping  in  view  the

recommendations.

               ………...................................J.

[R.K. AGRAWAL]             

                         …...……..................................J.

        [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] New Delhi, September 07, 2017