North West India Baptist Association (Regd) vs The Chandigarh Administration, Union Territory and Others

A.P. Chowdhri, J.—Brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner Society constructed a Church Building after taking a piece of land from Chandigarh Administration on ninety-nine years lease some time in 1985. In 1989, the society started running a Primary School called the Chandigarh Baptist School. Over the years the strength of the school increased to about 700 students and in August, 1992, the Society applied for a six Kanal plot near the Church for the construction of a School building. On November 24,1992, the Chandigarh Administration required the petitioner-Society to submit audited accounts and documents to show that the school being run by it was a recognized one. The petitioner complied with the above by producing the audited accounts and a provisional recognition (Annexure -5). In about August, 1993, the petitioner-Society had some suspicion that the land for which they had made an application was being allotted to St. Xavier''s School respondent No. 3. The petitioner-Society, therefore, made a representation (Annexure P-6) dated August 26, 1993. In November, 1993, the petitioner-Society learnt through an advertisement in the ''Tribune'' that respondent No. 3 had been allotted land. Accordingly, the present writ petition was filed challenging the action of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in arbitrarily ignoring the petitioner''s application for allotment of six Kanals of land and also for the restraining respondent No. 3 from making any construction on the land in question.

Separate written statements have been filed: one on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and the other on behalf of respondent No. 3. The main pleas taken by the Chandigarh Administration are that there was no notified Scheme governing the allotment of land to Societies like the petitioner and that the Administration had made no commitment to allot any such land at any stage. With regard to the existing school, it was stated that the land had been allotted to the petitioner for a Church vide lease (Annexure ''R-l'') dated February 26, 1985. Running of school on commercial lines constituted a contravention of the terms of the lease and made the plot already allotted to the petitioner liable to resumption. With regard to respondent No. 3, it was stated that the said respondent applied in 1985 for a four acre plot. It was allotted land accordingly in July 1990 in Sector 25, near the cremation grounds. Respondent No. 3 made a request for change of site on the ground of its unsuitability. That request was considered and allowed and an area of about four acres (19194.12 square yards) was allotted in Sector 44 on November 12,1993 vide lease deed Annexure ''R-3/1'' and possession of the land was delivered to the said respondent. It was also stated that the petitioner''s application for allotment of six Kanal plots was still under consideration and had not been finally disposed of.

Replication was filed on behalf of the petitioner reiterating the pleas averred in the writ petition earlier.

The motion Bench while admitting the petition directed by ex-parte order dated December 1, 1993 that construction be not raised on the disputed plot. Respondent No. 3 moved an application for vacation of the stay order and the stay was vacated by a learned Single Judge by order dated March 28, 1994, on the undertaking of respondent No. 3 to remove construction, if any, in the event of any portion of the land allotted to it being leased to the petitioner.

We have heard Mr. Yogesh Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for respondent No. 3.

It may be stated at the outset that the petitioner has not even attempted to build a case of contravention of any statutory provision or scheme having the force of law. The effort of the petitioner is confined to showing that the action of the respondent-Administration is arbitrary. The question for consideration is whether in the totality of facts and circumstances the petitioner deserves to succeed.

Mr. Sharma contended that the petitioner was prior in point of time in applying for the land, having submitted the application in August, 1982. Respondent No. 3, it was submitted, was allotted the land in question on November 12, 1993, when the petitioner''s application was still pending. It was further contended by Mr. Sharma that the land in question was adjoining the Church building where already a school is being run and it is for the purpose of providing a building for the school that the petitioner had made the application for allotment of six Kanal of land. He emphasised that owing to its close proximity with the Church, it will be possible for the petitioner to have better supervision and control on the school. It was also contended that the land was earmarked for the construction of a Primary School and in an arbitrary manner the same had been allotted to respondent No. 3 for construction of a High School.

Mr. Sarin, on the other hand, submitted that respondent No. 3 had made the application as far back as 1985 and had been allotted a four acre plot in Sector 25 which was not found suitable and respondent No. 3 had made an application for change of the site. The change was allowed and the allotment of the present site should relate back to July, 1990, when the original site in Sector 25 was allotted. That being so, respondent No. 3 was prior in point of time compared to the petitioner. Mr. Sarin laid great emphasis on the fact that the Administration had earmarked plots of different sizes to meet the peculiar requirements of various educational institutions depending on their strength etc. The plot in question was of about four acre and it could not possibly be broken up into smaller parcels so as to allot a six Kanal plot to the petitioner. He also urged that the petitioner was guilty of contravention of Conditions Nos. 17 and 18 of the lease deed (Annexure ''R-1''), relating to the Church building, by running a school in the building meant for Church. That being so, it was submitted, there was no equity in favour of the petitioner to allot land contiguous to the Church building for running a school. He also argued that the petitioner could not make a capital out of the fact that the site was earmarked for a Primary School for the simple reason that in its representation (Annexure P-6) the petitioner itself indicated that it wanted to construct a Middle School, as distinguished from a Primary School.

We have carefully considered the above submissions. It is not disputed before us that the land earmarked was of approximately four acres. While respondent No. 3 made application for allotment of about four acre plot, the application made by the petitioner was only for a six Kanal plot. There was no compelling reason for the Administration to have broken up the aforesaid large plot to carve out a smaller plot of six Kanal only to accommodate the petitioner. In the totality of facts and circumstances we are of the view that the change of site in favour of respondent No. 3 has not been made in an arbitrary manner and no case for quashing the said allotment has, therefore, been made out. We, therefore, find no merit in the writ petition which is accordingly dismissed.