RA No.182 of 2009 in CWP 13029 of 2007 1 Present: Mr.Ashish Chopra, Advocate for the applicant petitioners. Mr. Ajay Nara, Advocate for the non applicant- respondents. .... This is an application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Article 226 of the Constitution seeking review of the judgement dated 24.2.2009 passed by this Court in CWP No. 13029 of 2007 dismissing the writ petition. The principal ground for dismissal of the petition was that the land allotted to the applicant- school was shown to be allotted for high school on lease hold basis as per allotment letter dated 10.11.1993 (P.3) and therefore it could not be used for running Nursery or Pre-nursery classes. This Court while dismissing the writ petition has specifically noticed as under: S. No CWP No. Allotment letter/deed of lease/ deed of conveyance Sector Size Purpose of allotment of site as mentioned in the allotment letter/ deed of lease/ deed of conveyance 6 13029 of 2007 (i) RA-III- 93/406, dated 10.11.1993 (ii) RA-III- 94/908, dated 27.4.1994 14 Faridabad 1.5013772 acre (7266.66 sq. yds.) 58’ x 32’ 0.435 (i) Allotment letter dated 10.11.1993 describes ‘for ‘ High School’ . (ii) Allotment letter dated 27.4.1994 describes ‘for play ground’ – additional land A perusal of the aforesaid description of the allotment letter RA No.182 of 2009 in CWP 13029 of 2007 2 would show that the applicant- petitioner was allotted land on 10.11.1993 and 27.4.1994 for the purposes of high school and for play ground respectively. In the instant application, the applicant- petitioner has attached a photo copy of the allotment letter ( A.2) which shows that the allotment of land to DAV Public School in Sector 14, Faridabad was being allotted for 'primary school' on lease hold basis. One of the word namely 'high' before the word 'school' was struck off and the expression 'primary' before the word' school' was retained. In the original petition the word struck off was 'primary' as is evident from the allotment letter P.3. The applicant- petitioner has claimed that on account of this wrong description of the allotment of site, the decision has gone against them whereas in similar facts and circumstances where the allotment of land has been made for establishing primary school, the writ petitions were allowed. Notice of the review application was issued and respondents have filed a detailed reply. In para 6 of the application, the applicant- petitioner had made the following averments: “ That it is submitted that the petitioner- applicants had been allotted 1.5 acres for school vide allotment vide memo No. RA III-93/406 dated November 10, 1993. In the subject it was mentioned that the allotment of land to the petitioner-applicant no.1 was for primary school. A true photostat copy of allotment letter is annexed hereto as Annexure A/2 and the true typed copy of the same is annexed hereto as Annexure A/3.However, inadvertently due to a typographical error in the writ petition, the allotment letter, a copy of which was annexed with the writ petition as Annexure P.3, wrongly mentions the site to be 'for RA No.182 of 2009 in CWP 13029 of 2007 3 High School'.” It is not disputed that vide allotment letter dated 10.11.1993, the applicant- petitioner was allotted a site for establishing a 'primary school' and the expression 'high' before the word 'school' was struck off. The averments made in reply to para reads thus: “ That the contents of para no.6 of the review application are wrongly interpreted. However, land has been allotted for middle, secondary and senior secondary segment vide allotment letter bearing No. Rab/ 85/206/5027-29 dated 2.5.1986 and for primary segment vide memo No. RA-III-93/406 dated 10.11.1993. With detail description of land i.e. 1.60-13772 acres (7266.66 sq. yards). But the applicant/ petitioner has concealed the fact that the additional land was allotted to the applicant no.1 vide allotment letter dated 25.4.1994 for the playground. The applicants societies are running schools up to high school level in the same premises, the applicants have not distinguished the building of senior secondary school or primary school. Thus they have violated the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. Copy of the allotment letters dated 2.5.1996 and 10.11.1993 are annexed herewith as Annexures R/1 and R/2.” On account of the allegation that another plot was allotted to the petitioner-society in 1986 for running school upto high school level and they have not distinguished the building of senior secondary school or primary school. The applicant- petitioner sought time to file reply by attaching necessary documents. Accordingly, additional affidavit has been RA No.182 of 2009 in CWP 13029 of 2007 4 filed clarifying that the allotment of land on 10.11.1993 was for a specific purpose of establishing a primary school which was separate and independent of the land allotted to the applicant- petitioner on 2.5.1986 for higher secondary school. In para 6 of the affidavit filed by the applicant- petitioner a specific stand has been taken that they are not running high and/or senior secondary school in the areas allotted for primary school vide allotment letter dated 10.11.1993. It has been categorically controverted that the applicant- petitioners are running classes upto high school level in the premises allotted for primary classes and that they have not distinguished the building of senior secondary school from primary school. A site plan (A.4) dated 9.10.1994 has also been placed on record in support of the aforesaid stand. After hearing the learned counsel and perusing their respective pleadings, we are of the view that the applicant- petitioner had committed an error in quoting the allotment letter dated 10.11.1993 (P.3) in the original petition whereas the correct allotment letter undisputedly is A/2 and A/3. In those allotment letters, annexed with the review petition, the site is shown to be allotted for running primary school. When the aforesaid factual position is accepted to be correct then it follows that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as given to similar situated persons in a bunch of petitions allowed on 24.2.2009 i.e. CWP No. 11416 of 2007 ( Takshshila Vidya Mandir Education Society and another v. HUDA). In all those cases the school sites were allotted for establishing primary classes. Once the site has been allotted for primary school then it could not be considered to exclude the use of land for nursery or pre-primary classes. Accordingly the review application deserves to be allowed. RA No.182 of 2009 in CWP 13029 of 2007 5 For the reasons aforesaid the review application is accepted. The order dated 24.2.2009 passed in CWP No. 13029 of 2007 is hereby recalled. The writ petition is allowed in terms of the judgement of this Court in Takshshila Vidya Mandir Education Society's case (supra). ( M.M.Kumar) Judge (Jora Singh) 13.11.2009 Judge okg