ORDER
1. The challenge in this bunch of writ petitions, which are being decided by a common judgment, is to the increase by the respondents, with retrospective effect, of the premium payable by the petitioners for the land allotted to them by the Delhi Development Authority.
2. The petitioners are various societies which have been set up for the purposes of establishing educational institutions. The educational institutions which are proposed to be set up by them are unaided schools within the meaning of that expression in the Delhi Education Act.
3. The petitioners at various points of time, had applied to the Delhi Development Authority for allotment of land. The land is to be allotted by the Delhi Development Authority under the provisions of D.D.A. Nazul Land Rules, 1981. The applicants are required to file a detailed application for allotment of land. The applications so received are forwarded to the Delhi Administration, who scrutinise the same from various angles and it is only after the Delhi Administration makes its recommendations that the Delhi Development Authority considers allotment of land to the various applicants for setting up educational institutions. Apparently, the applications of the petitioners were scrutinised and it is only thereafter that the D.D.A. issued allotment letters to the petitioners agreeing to allot the land.
4. For the purposes of this petition, it is not necessary to set out in any great detail the exact area of land which was allotted to different petitioners. The land which was allotted to them was according to the need, which had been assessed by the respondents. The allotment was made by issuance of letters bearing different dates, but the contents of all the letters were identical in the sense that each one of these letters stipulated the price which was payable and also contained a provision whereby the petitioners were liable to pay an enhancement in price at a later date. It will be appropriate at this stage to set out clauses 1 and 2 of one such letter so received, which contained the necessary stipulation with regard to the price of land and the increase thereof. The said clauses in one of the cases, read as under:
'1. The Rose Educational Society and Cultural Society shall be required to pay the cost of land measuring 0.247 acres allotted for school building at the provisional rate of Rs. 8 lakhs per acre and annual ground rent @ 2-1/2 P.A. of the premium.
2. The Rose Educational Scientific and Cultural Society shall pay the difference of cost of land as may be decided by the Govt./ DDA.'
5. It is an admitted case that pursuant to the receipt of similar allotment letters all the petitioners, on various dates, have paid to the D.D. A. the cost of land as demanded. In some cases a regular lease deed was also executed. The lease deed, inter alia, contained the following term relating to enhancement of price:
'(1) The Lessee shall pay within such time such additional sum or sum toward premium as may be decided upon by the Lesser on account of the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector in respect of the said land or any part thereof being enhanced on reference or in appeal or both and the decision of the Lesser in this behalf shall be final and binding on the Lessee.
The yearly rent of two and half per cent of the premium hereby reserved shall be calculated on the sum received towards premium by the Lesser before the execution of these presents and such additional sum or sums payable towards premium as provided herein from Keith day of October one thousand nine hundred eighty seven.'
As already stated, the letters of allotment and the lease deeds which were executed were all similar to each other. Lease deed has been executed, in addition to issuance of letters of allotment in C.W. Nos. 2764/88, 2603/88, 2883/88, 2502/88, 377/89, 401/89 and 465/ 89. In the case of all other petitioners only letters of allotment were issued.
6. After the allotment letters were issued and/or lease deeds were executed possession of land was taken by the petitioners. I am informed that in some cases buildings have already been constructed after the building plans have been passed by the respondents, while in other cases buildings are under construction or the plans are still at the stage of being sanctioned. The grievance of the petitioners is to the letters received by them from the D.D.A. asking them to pay additional amount by way of purchase price. It seems that Delhi was, for the purposes of fixing the price of land, divided into four zones and the respondents revised the prices with effect from 1st April, 1987 as follows:SouthZone Rs. 28.50lakhs per acre WestZone Rs. 23.75lakhs per acre NorthZone Rs. 19 lakhsper acre EastZone Rs. 14.25lakhs per acre
Depending upon the location of the land which had been allotted to the petitioners the respondents asked the petitioners to pay the difference in price. The petitioners had, as already noted, paid the price of land at the rate of Rs. 8 lacks per acre. The excess amount was demanded by the respondents on the basis of the prices which have been revised by them w.e.f. 1st April, 1987. The respondents were demanding prices ranging from Rupees 14.25 lakhs; per acre to Rs. 28.50 lakhs per acre.
7. In all these writ petitions it is this decision of the respondents asking the petitioners to pay the increased price which has been challenged. The main contention of the petitioners is that the respondents can realise from the petitioners enhanced amount only if the enhancement is due to the actual cost of the land to the respondents going up. According to the petitioners on a correct interpretation of letters of allotment and the lease deed wherever executed, the respondents are not entitled to charge from the petitioners any amount in excess of a figure arrived at on 'no profit no loss' basis.
8. On behalf of D.D.A. a short affidavit has been filed. It has been stated that the rates at which the land is allotted to the educational societies is determined by the Government from time to time and the D. D.A. is bound to charge the rates so determined by the Government. According to the D.D.A. the Government has fixed rates for different zones and this is what has now been charged by the D.D.A. It is also averred in the reply affidavit that in some cases the lease deeds of the lands were executed and the lessees in those cases duly executed an undertaking that they would pay the difference in rates paid by them and that which may be ultimately fixed by the Government.
9. On behalf of the Union of India it has been stated that the Government notified three sets of land rates from time to time and these are as follows:
(i) The pre-determined residential and commercial land rates for various localities in Delhi for the purpose of administering leases and collection of unearned increase, damages etc.
(ii) The 'no profit no loss' rate for transfer of land between Central Government Departments.
(iii) The land rates for allotment of land to social, cultural, religious and educational institutions which are registered societies and are non-profit making organisations.
It is further contended that the rates of allotment to non-profit making organisations such as social, cultural and educational institutions till 31st March, 1987 was notified on the basis of 'no profit no loss' rate. This rate was Rs. 8 lakhs per acre from 1-4-1985 to 31-3-1987. According to the Union of India the 'no profit no loss' rate has been increased from 1-4-1987 to Rs. 9,50,000/- per acre. A significant change has, however, been made and that is that the aforesaid 'no profit no loss' rate is applicable only for the transfer of lands between the Central Government departments. With regard to institutional allotments, the land in Delhi has been placed into 4 different zones, namely, East Zone, West Zone, North Zone and South Zone and their rates have been revised in the manner indicated hereinabove. According to the Union of India, the rates now fixed for institutional allotments are considerably lower than the rates which are now being fixed for land for commercial use and even though the rates now fixed are more than that on 'no profit no loss' basis, there is still a considerable element of subsidy involved because the rates now fixed are much lower than the market value of the said land. One of the reasons for fixing different rates on zonal basis was that all the institutions were demanding land only in Central or South Delhi and the needs of the other parts of Delhi, especially, those colonies which are coming up in Trans-Yamuna and West Delhi areas, could not be met due to non provision of services like educational facilities. In other words, land in more popular areas has to be paid for at higher rate, while land in less popular areas is the cheapest. According to the Union of India, the policy of the Government is that the rates are revised every 2 years and as a lot of data has to be collected, there is some delay in notifying the rates and that necessitates the retrospective effect being given to the rates so notified. One further statement which is relevant which has been made by the respondents is that the rates which are notified are applicable in the case of primary and secondary schools only for the building portion which is about 50% of the land and remaining 50% is allotted to them for playground and open space at the rate of Re.1/- per annum.
10. From the facts enumerated hereinabove, it is clear that the petitioners; were liable to pay any increase in land cost, in terms of the letters of allotment or the lease deed,; as the case maybe. The question which arises for consideration is whether the increase which has been sought to be made by the respondents is in accordance with the terms of allotment.
11. A clear reading of the letter of allotment would show that the petitioners were asked to pay the cost of the land at the rate of Rs. 8 lakhs per acre. Cl. 1 of the letter of allotment terms this as a provisional rate. Cl. 2 of the allotment letter stipulated that the society 'shall pay the difference of cost of land as may be decided by the Govt./ DDA'. The indication from the reading of these two; clauses is that the price which was being sought to be realised from the petitioners was the cost of land to the respondents. This is evident from the fact that, admittedly, up to 31 March, 1987 the rate of such land on 'no profit no loss' basis had been fixed at Rs. 8 lakhs per acre. It is this figure which is mentioned in the allotment letter and in the lease deed. The policy of the Government till, the issuance of the allotment letter was to charge from the petitioners such rate which was arrived at on 'no profit no loss' basis. This policy has undergone a change subsequently, which resulted in the increased rate being asked from the petitioners. But the question is can the respondents change this policy in midstream? In my opinion, the answer to this is that the respondents cannot now change the basis for enhancing the price of land. The petitioners were informed that the land would have to be paid for at a price arrived at on 'no profit no loss' basis as that was the avowed policy of the Government. In the lease deed before me it is clear that the enhancement which would have to be paid by the petitioners was only with reference to the escalation of costs because of the Government having had to pay enhanced compensation on account of the awards being made under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The letter of allotment or the lease deed did not say that the petitioners would have to pay such enhancement as may be determined by the respondents. The expression 'difference of cost' occurring in the allotment letter has necessarily to be examined in the background in which that letter was written at that time. At the time when the allotment letters were issued the Government policy was not to charge from the educational institutions a rate higher than the one arrived at on 'no profit no loss' basis. The policy at that time was to charge a rate arrived at on 'no profit no loss' basis. thereforee, the expression 'difference of cost' can only mean difference of cost to the Government and not to anyone else. To put it differently, the Government was not obliged to sell the land to the allottees at a loss and, at the same time, no element of profit was also intended to be included therein by the Government.
12. The petitioners having thus been informed that they would have to pay enhanced rate on 'no profit no loss' basis, the respondents are estopped from going back on this promise, which was held out to the petitioners, and changing the basis of allotment. The principles of promissory estoppel, which are now firmly enshrined in our jurisprudence, are clearly applicable to the present case. A promise was held out by the respondents to the petitioners, namely, that the land will be allotted to them at a rate fixed on 'no profit no loss' basis and that they may have to pay additional amount depending upon the ultimate determination of the cost of land by the respondents. The petitioners acted on this promise to their detriment. The amount which was demanded was paid by the petitioners and further expenditure has been incurred by them for the purposes of establishing educational institutions. The respondents cannot now go back on the promise so made and charge a sum higher than the rate arrived at on 'no profit no loss' basis. The impugned decision of the respondents is clearly contrary to the allotment letters and the lease deed. Even though the rate now fixed may be lower than the market rate still this rate is, admittedly, higher than the one arrived at on 'no profit no loss' basis. This higher amount cannot be recovered from the petitioners as such demand is clearly contrary to the provisions of the allotment letters.
13. As already stated, the respondents were fully justified in demanding from the petitioners the price which was arrived at on 'no profit no loss basis'. Admittedly, the price fixed on 'no profit no loss' basis as on 1st April, 1987 is Rs. 9,50,000/ - per acre. It is not disputed by the petitioners that they are liable to pay for the land at the enhanced amount of Rs. 9,50,000/- per acre. Their dispute is to their being asked to pay the enhanced amount demanded by the respondents varying from Rs. 14.25 lakhs per acre to Rs. 28.50 lakhs per acre. It appears to me that as there has been an escalation in the cost of land it will be just and proper to require the petitioners to pay the enhanced amount at the rate of Rs. 9,50,000 / - per acre. Payment at this rate will be in accordance with the terms of the letter of allotment.
14. It has been strongly contended by Shri S. P. Kalra, counsel for the D.D.A., that there was an undertaking given by the petitioners that they would pay the additional amount as and when demanded by the respondents. Shri Kalara has not been able to bring to my notice any document which contains any such undertaking, except the letter of allotment and the lease deed which have already been adverted to hereinabove. If there had been any undertaking given by the petitioners to the respondents, dehors what has been indicated hereinabove, then, possibly, the respondents may have been entitled to charge in excess of Rs. 9,50,000 / - per acre. In the absence of any such document having been placed on record, or even shown to me at the time of arguments, I am unable to come to the conclusion that any such undertaking was given especially when the counsel for the petitioners deny the giving of any such undertaking.
15. It is made clear that I am not deciding on the validity of the prices of land fixed by the respondents w.e.f. lst April, 1987. That policy may be fully justified and valid. It is not that policy which is being challenged, but what is being challenged is the implementation of that policy to the cases like the present, where letters of allotment and lease deeds had already been executed and which contained a different principle for determining the enhancement of prices which would be payable by the petitioners.
16. In view of the aforesaid, a Writ of Mandamus is issued quashing the impugned demand raised by the respondent-DDA. The D.D.A. shall, however, be entitled to raise a fresh demand on the petitioners, and the petitioners shall be liable to pay increased cost of land calculated at the rate of Rs. 9,50,000/ per acre.
17. Because of the aforesaid view which has been taken, the learned counsel for the petitioners have not raised any other contentions before me and they reserve their right to do so, if the need arises, in any future proceedings.
18. Petition allowed.