The Apex Court on 9th September 2013 in the aforesaid case was called upon to decide the question whether a Notification permitting utilization of sites earmarked for nursery schools under the master plan for any other purpose was ultra vires the provisions of the DDA Act, 1957 or is arbitrary and violative of the provisions of the constitution. In the present dispute, the alleged site or land was originally earmarked under the Master Plan for establishment of schools and therefore in accordance to the Plan was allotted to an educational society for setting up a school. This society did not establish the school and therefore a notification was issued by virtue of which a list of activities was provided under which this earmarked land/site could be allotted. The land was allotted to one of respondents for setting up a Fine arts Society. This allotment and notification was challenged by the appellants. The High Court and Supreme Court dismissed the petitions of the appellants. However on account of the undertaking by the counsel of DDA that the matter would be looked upon by Vice-Chairman of DDA on account of DDA, the court stated in the order in appellant could after getting the endorsement from the respective educational board may seek permission from the Vice-chairman in respect of the land. The Vice Chairman refused to grant permission to the appellants and thereafter appellant filed the appeal to the High Court challenging the order of Vice-chairman along with asserting the same claims as decided by the courts earlier and also relying upon the note of Minister of Urban Development. The High Court dismissed the appeal and held they cannot reagitate the same issues before the court and there was no fresh cause of action for them for filing appeal. The appellant thereafter filed appeal to the apex court. The appellants contended that the High Court committed an error in invoking the principle of res-judicata and submitted further that order of the vice-chairman gave them fresh cause of action to seek intervention of the court and the vice-chairman was bound to consider the note from the Minister of urban development even though if it was not formalised into formal order. The appellants submitted that the notification was ultra vires and arbitrary in nature. The respondents on the other hand contended that claim by the appellants had already been negative and note from the Urban Development Minister could not be enforced because the same had not been translated into an order of the Government. The Apex Court accepted the submissions of the respondents and observed the appellants petitions in respect of notification had already been dismissed by the court and therefore the representations made by the appellants in regard to the withdrawal of allotments in favour the respondent was misconceived and hence High court did not commit an error in dismissing the same. The court also said that fresh litigation on account of note from urban development minister was uncalled for as the note did not attained any legal sanctity as it was by virtue of Articles 77 and 166 not particularly expressed in the name of President of India or governor and therefore cannot be relied upon. The apex court thus dismissed the petition of the appellants.
Skip & continue
Disclaimer
In Compliance with Indian Regulations, Kindly Review the User Acknowledgement and Disclaimer below and then Proceed.
User Acknowledgement
By proceeding further and clicking on the "ACCEPT" button herein below, I acknowledge that I of my own accord wish to know more about Law Senate (LS) for my own information and use. I further acknowledge that there has been no solicitation, invitation or inducement of any sort whatsoever from Law Senate (LS) or any of its members to create an Attorney-Client relationship through this website. I further acknowledge having read and understood the Disclaimer below
This website (www.lawsenate.com) is a resource for informational purposes only and is intended, but not promised or guaranteed, to be correct, complete, and up-to-date. Law Senate (LS) does not warrant that the information contained on this website is accurate or complete, and hereby disclaims any and all liability to any person for any loss or damage caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions result from negligence, accident or any other cause. Law Senate (LS) further assumes no liability for the interpretation and/or use of the information contained on this website, nor does it offer a warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. The owner/Partners of this website do not intend links from this site to other internet websites to be referrals to, endorsements of, or affiliations with the linked entities. Law Senate (LS) is not responsible for, and makes no representations or warranties about, the contents of Web sites to which links may be provided from this Web site.
This website is not intended to be a source of advertising or solicitation and the contents of the website should not be construed as legal advice. The reader should not consider this information to be an invitation for a lawyer-client relationship and should not rely on information provided herein and should always seek the advice of competent counsel licensed to practice in the reader's country/state. Transmission, receipt or use of this website does not constitute or create a lawyer-client relationship. No recipients of content from this website should act, or refrain from acting, based upon any or all of the contents of this site.
Furthermore, the owner of this website does not wish to represent anyone desiring representation based solely upon viewing this Web site or in a country/state where this website fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state. Finally, the reader is warned that the use of Internet e-mail for confidential or sensitive information is susceptible to risks of lack of confidentiality associated with sending email over the Internet.
