UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus JAIN SABHA, NEW DELHI AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 21-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
v. 
JAIN SABHA, NEW DELHI AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 21, 1996 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] 
Allotment of land-Schools and Charitable Institutions-Allotme11t of 
land by Govemme11t/Land and Development Office,-J.363 acres of land @ 
Rs. 5, 000 per acre i11 favour of charitable i11Stitutio11-Amou11t of co11sideratio11 
paid-But possession could not be delivered for various reasons-No steps 
taken by institution thereafter to enforce its claim-About 20 years later alter-
nate land of 2.15 acres proposed to be allotted at uniform rate of Rs. 8 lakhs 
per acr~Subsequently, formal letter of allotment issued stipulating a rate of 
Rs. 5,000 per acre for 1.363 acres (Original offer) and Rs. 38 lakhs per acre 
for excess land of 0. 787 acre--/nstitution accepted the offer and deposited Rs. 
JO /akhs towards part consideratio11-Subsequently, on basis of High Court's 
decision in Lala Amamath's case institution filed writ petition before High 
Court claiming that rate charged for additional land should be Rs. 8 /a/dis 
per acre-Held : Institution had no right to allotment-Once rate offered by 
Government was accepted and part co11Sideration made, institution could not 
resile from its position and claim lower rate-Lala Amamath 's case inap-
p/icab/e-l11Stitution could only request Government for sympathetic con-
sideration of its cas~ovemment should review entire policy relating to 
allotment of land to schools and charitable institutions. 
The respondent-Sabha wao allotted 1.363 acres of land by the appel-
lant for running a school. The respondent paid the amount of considera-
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
tion iu the same year of allotment. However, possession could not be 
delivered for various reasons and no steps were taken by the respondent 
thereafter to enforce its claim. About 20 years later an alternate plot of 
land of 2.15 acres was proposed to be allotted at au uniform rate of Rs. 8 
Iakhs per acre. However, 4 years later a formal letter of allotment was G 
issued stipulating a rate of Rs. S,000 per acre for 1.363 acres (which was 
the original offer) and Rs. 38 lakhs per acre for the excess laud of 0.787 
acre. The respondent accepted the offer and deposited Rs. 10 Iakhs 
towards part consideration and also requested for further time to deposit 
the balance amount. 
H 
1 
A 
B 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
However, the respondent resiled from this position pursuant to a 
decision of the High Court in Lala Amarnath's case. Taking advantage of 
this decision the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court claim-
ing that the rate charged from the additional land should be @ Rs. 8 lakbs 
per acre only and not @ Rs. 38 lakbs per acre. The High Court allowed 
the petition. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred the present appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The judgment of the High Court in Lala Amarnath's case 
was in no way relevant to the facts of this case. Therefore, the reversal of 
C its stand by the respondent- Sabha was neither justified as a fact nor 
justified in law. Even assuming that the saidjudgment was relevant in some 
manner, the Sabha could not request for revision of price but could not 
claim such revision as a matter of right, in view of its acceptance of the 
terms of letter of allotment. The Sabha had no right to allotment. It was not 
brought to the notice of this Court that allotment of land to a school by the 
D Government of India or by the Land and Development Officer was governed 
by any statute or statutory powers. It is not - and it cannot be - the case of 
the Sabha that its acceptance by making part payment was vitiated by the 
later judgment of the High Court between third parties and that it was not 
bound by the said acceptance. Ifit takes that stand, the resnlt would be that 
E the very offer contained in the letter of allotment would lapse; there would 
be no allotment at all in favour of the Sabha. This is the factual position. 
As regards the legal aspect, it appears highly doubtful whether the writ 
petition itself was maintainable but it is not necessary to pursne this line 
of enquiry for the reason that no such objection seems to have been raised 
before or considered by the High Court. The judgment of the High Court 
F 
does not refer to any such objection nor does it deal with it. The proper 
course in all the circumstances of the case is to leave it open to the respon-
dents to approach the appellants w

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