Summary
An in-principle approval and internal file notings did not create a vested right to a DDA land allotment without a final communicated order. The Society lacked the area-specific sponsorship required for Vasant Kunj, the pending application was subject to the intervening auction policy, and its unexplained 11-year delay barred relief under Article 226.
Issues
- Whether an in-principle approval and internal file notings created an enforceable right to allotment of a school site before a final allotment order was issued and communicated.
- Whether the Society could compel allotment in Vasant Kunj on the basis of certificates issued for Jasola, despite the intervening policy requiring auction or tender for pending allotments.
- Whether the Society’s 11-year delay in seeking writ relief defeated its claim.
Provisions considered
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaThe Court held that a litigant seeking discretionary writ relief must act within a reasonable time. The Society’s unexplained 11-year delay after the in-principle approval barred its claim for mandamus. (¶ 18.1)
- Land allotment by auction or tender, Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981, as amended in 2006The 2003 policy applied the auction requirement to pending allotment cases; the 2006 amendment to the Rules also replaced allotment with auction or tender. Neither change was challenged, and no allotment had been made to the Society before the policy changed. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 16, 18.4, 18.9)
Held
- Internal file notings and an in-principle approval are provisional and do not confer a vested right to land. A right accrues only when the decision is finalized in an order, communicated to the allottee, and the required conditions are met; no such allotment order was issued here. (¶¶ 7, 16, 18.7)
- The Essentiality Certificate and Sponsorship Letter were area-specific. Certificates for Jasola could not support an allotment in Vasant Kunj, and the Society had no Sponsorship Letter for Vasant Kunj. The DDA was not required to allot land when these mandatory conditions were unfulfilled. (¶¶ 2, 3, 5, 9, 16, 18.2, 18.3, 18.10)
- The unchallenged 15 December 2003 policy required pending land allotments to be made through auction; the 2006 amendment to the 1981 Rules likewise required auction or tender. Because no allotment had been made before the policy change, the Society could not obtain a mandamus based on its earlier in-principle approval. The Court did not decide a general question of retrospectivity. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 13, 18.4, 18.9)
- A claim to discretionary relief under Article 226 may be denied for unexplained delay and laches. The Society waited 11 years after the in-principle approval to seek a writ and gave no satisfactory explanation; the petition should have been dismissed on that ground alone. It could not claim negative parity from other alleged allotments contrary to the rules. (¶¶ 16, 18.1, 18.10)
Result
The appeals were allowed, the High Court judgments were set aside, and the Society’s writ petition was dismissed. No order as to costs.