DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus HELLO HOME EDUCATION SOCIETY

Citation: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 454 · Decided: 11-01-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH, RAJESH BINDAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 454 : 2024 INSC 33
Delhi Development Authority
v.
Hello Home Education Society
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3659-3660 of 2023)
11 January 2024
[Vikram Nath* and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Mere notings and in-principle approvals, if confers a vested 
right; in view of the change in policy decision and the amended 
1981 Rules that the allotment of land would be made through 
auction and also included those cases where allotment was 
yet to be made, if the High Court was justified in granting 
relief to the respondent society; and that the litigant who is 
not diligent, if could invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of 
the High Court u/Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.
Headnotes
Administrative law – Policy decision – Change in policy – 
Mere notings and in-principle approvals, reliance upon to 
claim any right – Matter pertaining to allotment of land to 
respondent-Educational Society to establish School in Jasola 
area, wherein the Society secured an Essentiality Certificate 
and Sponsorship Letter for that area – Complaint by a resident 
of Vasant Kunj alleging that the Society was trying to get an 
illegal allotment of land in Vasant Kunj – In-principle approval 
of the Lieutenant Governor for Vasant Kunj – Thereafter, 
Institutional Allotment Committee made recommendation 
for allotment of land to the Society in Vasant Kunj, but no 
allotment letter issued – Meanwhile change in policy by the 
Development Authority that allotment of land to Educational 
Institutions to be made through auction and any further 
allotment would be covered by the policy decision – Writ 
petition by the Society seeking direction to the department 
to implement the decision already taken for allotment of plot 
to the Society for establishment of school in Vasant Kunj, at 
par with the other Education Society – Direction by the Single 
Judge to issue allotment letter – Division Bench upheld the 
order – Correctness:
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
455
Delhi Development Authority v. Hello Home Education Society
Held: In-principle approval by the Lieutenant Governor for allotment 
of land in Vasant Kunj having been granted in 2003, there was no 
justification for the Society to file a writ petition in the year 2014 
on the basis thereof – Essentiality Certificate and Sponsorship 
Letter were with respect to setting up an educational institution in 
Jasola Area – Said certificates and the requirements were area 
specific – Appellant could not be compelled to make an allotment 
where the essential and mandatory conditions were not fulfilled 
– Policy decision of 2003 and the 1981 Rules amended in 2006 
clearly mentioned that allotment of land would be made through 
auction and also included those cases where allotment was yet 
to be made – Before the date of change in policy, there was no 
allotment of land in favour of the respondent – There was no 
challenge either to the policy decision or to the 1981 Rules – Merely 
seeking a Writ on the strength of the in-principle approval given 
by the Lieutenant Governor would not be maintainable in view of 
the change situation arisen much earlier to the filing of the writ 
petition – Furthermore, mere notings and in-principle approvals 
do not confer a vested right – Also, any allotment made contrary 
to the existing policy and rules, would not form basis of benefit 
being extended to another society as under law negative parity is 
not recognised or approved – Single Judge and Division Bench 
of the High Court erred while granting relief to the Society, thus, 
the impugned orders set aside – Delhi Development Authority 
(Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981.  [Paras 18.1-
18.4, 18.7, 18.9, 18.10, 19]
Delay/Laches – Inordinate delay in approaching the Court – 
Effect:
Held: Litigant who is not diligent cannot invoke the extraordinary 
jurisdiction of the High Court u/Art. 226 – On facts, in-principle 
approval having been granted on 24.03.2003, there was no 
justification for the Society to wait for 11 years to file a writ petition 
in the year 2014 on the basis of the said in-principle approval of 
the Lieutenant Governor – Society ought to have exercised due 
diligence and should have claimed its rights within a reasonable 
time from the date of said in- principle approval if the same was 
not being implemented and the allotment letter was not being 
issued – There is no justifiable or satisfactory explanation for the 
said period of inordinate delay of 11 years – Co

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.