BUDDHA TRI-RATNA MISSION Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 and 227 of The Constitution of India seeking writ in the nature of mandamus or order directing the Respondent No.2 and 3 herein to give possession to the petitioner of the land admeasuring area of half acre at C.R. Park in New Delhi which was allotted to the petitioner on 12.05.1997 by Respondent No.2.

(2.) Brief facts stated are that the petitioner is a registered society with the object of promoting social and cultural welfare of buddhist and construct temples, prayer halls, dharamshala, pali institutes, orphanage, libraries, etc. or any other institute for purpose relating to the development of culture. The petitioner made an application for allotment of land in the year 1975. In pursuance to said application, the respondent in 1983 agreed to allot the land admeasuring 2023 Sq.m. in Chittranjan Park (EDP Colony), New Delhi for consideration of Rs. 3 Lakhs only. Subsequently, during the process of the allotment, respondent increased price of the land to Rs. 40,99,163/-. The revised allotment amount of Rs. 40,99,163/- was challenged by the petitioner in the writ CW(C) 159/1998 before this court, where the writ was dismissed on the ground that scheme of allotment was made on the category of non-charitable institution. Petitioner being aggrieved, challenged the writ vide LPA 226/2000 before Division Bench, same was dismissed. Aggrieved from Division Bench judgment, petitioner filed SLP No. 14971/2000 before Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Civil Appeal No. 4889/2002, where Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 14.05.2008, on finding, Rs.10,50,000/- has already been deposited as per direction of Delhi High Court and status quo order has already passed in favour of petitioner, petitioner was directed to deposit balance amount within a period of 2 months from date of supply of order. As per direction, petitioner deposited balance amount of Rs. 30,49,000/- by 26.09.2008.

(3.) Despite petitioner depositing entire amount on 26.09.2008, Respondent No.2 did not give possession of the aforesaid land to the petitioner, rather started demanding ground rent and interest thereon from 2009 onwards.