JUDGMENT
D.P. Wadhwa, J.
(1) The petitioner, a religious society, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a writ, order or direction quashing the letter dated 27 April 1993 (page 24) of respondents 1 and 2 withdrawing “No Objection Certificate” earlier granted to the petitioner and a direction is also sought requiring the Delhi Development Authority, the first respondent, to execute the Sub-Lease Deed in favor of the petitioner in respect of plot bearing No. 3, Institutional Area, Nirman Vihar, Delhi. As the title shows, there are four respondents. A direction is also sought to impose exemplary cost on the fourth respondent for filing a frivolous suit bearing No. 264 of 1992 titled Lovely Bal Shiksha Parishad through its Secretary Shri O.P. Hans, Advocate v. Delhi Development Authority and pending in the court of the Sub Judge First Class, Delhi, whereby the petitioner had been deprived of its right to use and enjoy the aforesaid plot of land. Yet another direction sought is to the third respondent to provide security to the petitioner for raising construction of a building on the aforesaid plot. We issued notice to show cause to the respondents and in answer thereto respondents 1 and 2, on the one hand, and respondent No.4, on the other, have filed their respective answers to show cause notice. We have heard the arguments in detail.
(2) Respondent No.3 Delhi Development Authority (for short D.D.A.), is a body corporate constituted under the Delhi Development Act, 1957, and has various functions to perform under the Act. It carved out three religious plots of land measuring 400 square metres each in the institutional area of Nirman Vihar, Delhi, and out of these three plots, plot bearing No. 3 was allotted to the petitioner. The allotment letter is dated 12 December 1991. Petitioner made full payment of the plot and possession of the plot was handed over to it on 23 July 1992. A no objection certificate was issued by the D.D.A. to the petitioner on 19 January 1993 for raising construction on the plot. This no objection was, however, withdrawn on 27 April 1993 on the ground that the D.D.A. had been informed that a Suit No. 264/92 was pending in respect of the plot in question in the court of Mr. D.S. Paweriya, Civil Judge, and that the court had desired that status quo might be maintained in respect of the said plot. The petitioner was, therefore, informed ‘that the no objection certificate was withdrawn till settlement of the court case/vacation of status quo order. This communication has led to filing of the present petition and it is this communication which is sought to be quashed. There is no dispute as to the facts narrated above. Petitioner’s contention in brief is that no opportunity was granted to it before the no objection certificate was withdrawn and that principles of natural justice had been violated and further that the D.D.A. did not apply its mind at all to the facts of the civil suit inasmuch as the petitioner was not a party to the proceedings in that suit. Petitioner accused the D.D.A. in not seriously contesting the civil suit and taking no steps to have the order of status quo vacated. Petitioner also accused that some officials of the D.D.A. were colluding with the fourth respondent. It was also submitted that the impugned order of status quo of the learned Sub Judge did not apply to the plot in question.
(3) To understand the rival contentions, a reference may be to the Civil Suit No. 264/92. In this suit filed by the fourth respondent against the first respondent it was stated that the fourth respondent was running number of schools and one of the schools was on the land measuring 0.28 acres at Patpar Ganj Road, Nirman Vihar, where the fourth respondent had constructed school building and was imparting education to the students. Fourth respondent said that there was a piece of land adjoining the school at Nirman Vihar which land was earmarked for the school and that students used the said piece of land shown as red in the plan filed with the plaint as playground and for other school activities and that the fourth respondent was in possession of the said piece of land. Then it was stated in the plaint that at the time of allotment of the land to the fourth respondent the D.D.A. had promised to allot the aforesaid piece of land shown in red colour in the site plan to the fourth respondent for furtherance of the aims and objects of the society which was running the school but that the D.D.A. had not allotted the said piece of land to the fourth respondent despite recommendations by the Director of Education, Delhi, for allotment of that piece of land to the fourth respondent. As to how the cause of action arose to the fourth respondent to file the suit it was stated that some outsiders appeared in the locality on 6 May 1992 intimating that a temple was going to be constructed on the aforesaid piece of land. Fourth respondent said that there was no allotment of the land to the temple and there could also be no such allotment as the land was surrounded by three schools. It was also stated that there were about five thousand students in the school of the fourth respondent at Nirman Vihar; one thousand students in Government Higher Secondary School; and 300 students in Sishu Mangal School surrounding the land in question. It was then mentioned that in case a religious temple was set up it would prejudice .the studies of large number of students and will also cause disturbance to their studies and students will be deprived of play field/playground. Fourth respondent also said that there was no need to construct any temple on the piece of land in question. It was then stated that it was not necessary to serve any notice on the D.D.A. under section 53 of the D.D.A. Act as there was imminent apprehension that a temple would be set up at the disputed site, and that giving a notice would make the suit infructuous. Fourth respondent, therefore, prayed that the D.D.A. be restrained permanently from giving possession of the aforesaid piece of land shown as red in the site plan in front of the school of the fourth respondent to any person except the fourth respondent itself. A prayer was also made that the D.D.A. be restrained from dispossessing the fourth respondent from the aforesaid piece of land and from interfering in the day-to- day activities of the students of the fourth respondent at the suit land. Two documents were filed along with plaint in the civil suit – one was letter dated 22 January 1991 from the Directorate of Education to the fourth respondent wherein it was mentioned that the case for allotment of land to the fourth respondent was recommended to the D.D.A. by letter dated 22 January 1991 sent through registered post and that the fourth respondent was requested to see Deputy Director (Inst.), D.D.A., for.necessary action in the matter; and the second was a site plan showing the suit land as red and marked as playground. This was shown as adjacent to the primary school of the. plaintiff (fourth respondent) and on the plan there was a description as follows :- PLAYGROUND with Lovely Bal Shiksha Parishad (Regd) at Nirman Vihar, Delhi. Nursery School owned by Lovely Bal Shiksha Parishad (Regd). Portion shown in red colour. The suit by the fourth respondent was filed on or about 19 May 1992. On the next day, Mr. A.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the D.D.A., appeared and requested time for filing written statement and documents. The court noted that the plea of the plaintiff (fourth respondent) was that the allotment of land was against the procedure. The court directed that in the meantime parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property. It appeared that nothing happened in the suit thereafter and almost for a year or so the D.D.A. did not file written statement or reply to the application of the fourth respondent for interim injunction.
(4) Against the impugned communication dated 27 April 1993 of the D.D.A. withdrawing the no objection certificate, the petitioner wrote to the D.D.A. Nothing happened and this petition was, therefore, filed on 14 September 1993. During course of hearing of this petition we examined the record of the D.D.A. and also recorded the statement of Mr. O.P. Hans, Secretary of the fourth respondent. D.D.A. showed us the lay out plan of Nirman Vihar which was the same as that filed by the petitioner in this petition. We also noted from the record of the D.D.A. that on 19 April 1993 Mr. R.P. Malik, an officer of the District Court who was also present before us at the time of hearing, had appeared before the Director (Lands), D.D.A., informing him about the trial court’s order dated 25 September 1992. On that, it appeared, action was taken by the D.D.A. whereby no objection certificate issued to the petitioner was withdrawn. In his statement Mr. O.P. Hans admitted before us that the plan filed by the fourth respondent in the trial court was not correct. He said it was only on the last date of hearing of this petition (12 May 1994) that he came to know that the plan so filed was not correct. He said a clerk of the fourth respondent whose name he did not recollect was sent to the site to prepare the plan and that he (Mr.Hans) had no personal knowledge about the preparation of the plan. Mr. Hans said that in the plan the area on the road which had been shown as parking, was in fact not parting. He also admitted that the fourth respondent was not in possession of the red portion shown in the plan, which was described as piece of land in the suit filed by the fourth respondent. Mr. Hans also admitted that at no point of time the fourth respondent was allotted or given possession of that land. He also admitted that that piece of land and which was subject-matter of the suit was not the one which had been recommended to be allotted’ to the fourth respondent. Then Mr. Hans clarified that the red portion in the site plan had been wrongly delineated as red and that in fact the adjoining triangular portion should have been delineated. Then he said that the fourth respondent was in possession of that triangular portion of the land which according to him was adjacent to the portion shown as red in the site plan filed with the suit. He also admitted that the fourth respondent was not given possession of that portion of land as well by the D.D.A. but that the fourth respondent was in possession thereof since 1988 as D.D.A. had assured that that land could be allotted to the fourth respondent for play field. Mr. Hans then said that the fourth respondent was not in possession of any such letter by which D.D.A. might have given that assurance. He also could not say which officer of the D.D.A. had assured the fourth respondent that that particular piece of land in fact would be allotted to the society
(5) If we see the site plan filed by the fourth respondent in the suit, there is no triangular plot of land adjacent to the portion marked as red and shown as playground. When compared this site plan with that filed by the petitioner, it is apparent that the site plan filed by the fourth respondent in the suit is totally different and has no bearing to the land which had been allotted to the petitioner and for which no objection certificate had been issued. It appears to us that whole suit of the fourth respondent is based on a wrong premise. A deliberate attempt seems to have been made to make averments which are against the record and claim made which is not true. We have to say all this as the filing of suit and the status quo order obtained there from is directly in issue in the present petition. The suit by the fourth respondent had been filed through its Secretary Mr. O.F. Hans who verified the plaint. His statement we recorded is contrary to what he verified in the plaint. There was no assurance given by the D.D.A. that any land would be allotted to the fourth respondent for play field, nor there was any assurance from any of the authorities that any land adjacent to the school would be allotted to the fourth respondent. There is nothing on the record to show that any land adjacent to the school of the fourth respondent was even in its possession. It is also difficult to believe that on a land measuring 0.28 acre the fourth respondent has a primary school of 5000 students. We are unable to appreciate as to how the learned Sub Judge could order maintenance of status quo when there was nothing on the record to show that piece of land shown red in the plan filed with the plaint was ever in authorised possession of the fourth respondent assuming children of the school used to play there. A false claim would appear to have been made in the plaint. We are aware our observations in this petition would affect the suit, but that cannot be helped. We cannot shut our eyes to plain facts and allow injustice to perpetrate. We are also unable to appreciate as to why the court could not decide the application for grant of interim relief in the suit for over a year. In any case, on the basis of the suit as laid and the site plan filed with the plaint, the order of status quo could at best only relate to possession respecting the piece of land shown red in the plan which plan admittedly is not correct. This order could certainly not pertain to the land of the petitioner of which possession had already been delivered to it. The suit filed by the fourth respondent, therefore, did not pertain to the land in possession of the petitioner. Till 19 April 1993 there was nothing on the record of the D.D.A. that any interim order had been issued in the suit filed by the fourth respondent. It is only on 19 April 1993 that Mr. R.P. Malik claiming himself to be representative of the fourth respondent appeared in public hearing before the Director (Land) of the D.D.A. and brought to his notice the order dated 20 May 1992 passed by the Sub Judge, Delhi, for maintenance of the status quo. It was represented by him that status quo pertained to the land which had been allotted to the petitioner and to another association. Mr. Malik also represented that D.D.A. had given possession of the site to the petitioner after the status quo order had been passed by the learned Sub Judge. The noting on the file records, that Mr. Malik requested that “orders of the court may be maintained and construction at site by Sanatan Dharam Sabha, Nirman Vihar, may not be permitted.” It was also noted that Mr. Malik had further requested that the building plans in respect of Sanatan Dharam Sabha might not be cleared in order to avoid any embarrassing situation subsequently of having committed violation of the court’s order. On these representations the D.D.A. withdrew the no objection certificate. We are unable to appreciate how Mr. R.P. Malik, an official of the District Court, could have been present in the public hearing on behalf of the fourth respondent and what interest he had in the matter. We have noted above that on one hearing before this Court Mr. R.P. Malik was also present in the court. His conduct has been severely criticised by Mr. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. That is, however, a matter to be looked into on the administrative side.
(6) It will, thus, appear to us that the D.D.A. hastened to withdraw the no objection certificate granted to the petitioner without examining the correct facts and without even issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner. The action of the D.D.A. in withdrawing the no objection certificate is palpably illegal and has to be set aside. We order accordingly.
(7) The petitioner has also claimed damages for the loss suffered by it on account of the illegal action of the respondents, but for that we are of the opinion that petitioner should be relegated to the position of filing a civil suit, if it so desired. Petitioner has also claimed execution of the sub-lease deed by respondents I and 2 in respect of the land in its possession when it had paid all the dues of the D.D.A. It is, therefore, entitled to have the sub-lease deed executed as per the rules on the subject.
(8) We would, therefore, allow the petition to the extent that we quash the order of the D.D.A. withdrawing the no objection certificate earlier granted to the petitioner for constructing a building on plot No. 3, Institutional Area, Nirman Vihar, Delhi, and communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 27 April 1993 and we issue a mandamus to respondents 1 and 2 to execute the sub-lease deed in respect of the aforesaid plot in favor of the petitioner as per the procedure. This should be done within a period of three months from today. Petitioner will be entitled to costs to be paid by the fourth respondent. Counsel fee Rs.5,000.00 .