The Udaipur DPS Land Scandal - How a Promise to Educate Tribal Children Was Betrayed

Udaipur- A major land allocation scandal involving Delhi Public School (DPS) in Udaipur has exposed a deep-rooted system of political patronage and administrative collusion, raising serious questions about the exploitation of government policies meant for the upliftment of underprivileged and Adivasi (tribal) children.

The case revolves around the allocation of approximately 7 acres (over 4 lakh square feet) of prime government land to the Mangalam Education Society at highly concessional rates in 2005. The allocation was made on the specific condition that the land would be used to provide high-quality, affordable education to children from marginalized communities, including a significant quota for Scheduled Tribes (STs). An RTI investigation now reveals that these conditions were blatantly violated for years, with authorities turning a blind eye.

 It was the relentless pursuit of information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, by veteran journalist and leading RTI activist, Jaywant Bherviya, that finally pierced through this wall of silence, exposing a decade of deceit and betrayal against Adivasi children.

The Foundation of the Scandal: The 2005 Allotment

The genesis of the scandal lies in a compelling promise made in 2005. The Mangalam Education Society, chaired by Govind Agrawal, petitioned the state government with a proposal that was difficult to refuse. They requested a vast tract of 7 acres of prime government land in Udaipur's Bhuvana area at heavily concessional rates, pledging to use it to build a school that would provide high-quality education, hostel facilities, and sports grounds specifically for poor and Adivasi children.

This proposal was strategically crafted to appeal to the government's welfare agenda, especially since Udaipur is a designated Tribal Sub-Plan (TSP) area with a significant tribal population. Lured by this vision of social upliftment, the government, through the Urban Improvement Trust (UIT), allotted the land with ironclad conditions mandating that 25% of all seats be reserved for children from SC, ST, OBC, disabled, martyred soldiers', and widows' categories.

A specific sub-clause explicitly reserved 8% of the total seats exclusively for Adivasi (ST) children, who were also to be charged only 50% of the regular fees. This land was not sold; it was entrusted to the society for a specific social purpose.

However, this promise proved to be hollow from the very beginning. Investigations reveal that the school management, having secured the land for a pittance, never had any intention of fulfilling its part of the bargain. The mandatory 25% quota for underprivileged children, the cornerstone of the agreement, was never implemented.

The special 8% reservation for Adivasi children, a commitment made specifically in the name of tribal education, remained entirely on paper. The school never created a separate admission process or allocated seats under this special quota. Furthermore, the promised 50% fee concession for these students was also ignored. Instead, when questioned years later, the school management disingenuously pointed to admissions made under the general Right to Education (RTE) Act, which mandates a 25% quota for disadvantaged groups in all private schools.

This was a deliberate and cynical misdirection. The RTE quota is a universal legal requirement, completely separate from the additional 25% quota that was the specific quid pro quo for receiving the land at concessional rates. By conflating the two, the school attempted to hide its failure; in reality, it was obligated to reserve a total of 50% of its seats for underprivileged children, a commitment it blatantly violated.

The scandal deepens when examining the role of the authorities, who transitioned from being passive bystanders to active participants in the cover-up. Speaking with The Mooknayak, Jaywant stated, "The first major red flag was raised in March 2012 when a UIT official issued a formal notice to the school, questioning the non-compliance and threatening to cancel the lease. This was a critical opportunity to rectify the wrong. However, the system connived to bury the issue. The school submitted a mere written statement claiming full compliance, and without any physical verification or audit of records, the UIT authorities accepted this blatant falsehood and closed the file for over a decade."

This act of administrative negligence was the first concrete step in the cover-up. The collusion reached its zenith in 2025 when, after a formal complaint, the Udaipur Development Authority (UDA) formed a committee to investigate. In a brazen act of whitewashing, the committee's report deliberately equated the RTE admissions with the land allotment conditions, declaring the school compliant and effectively misleading the state government. This was not an error but a designed strategy to protect the powerful school management and bury the scandal under a layer of bureaucratic jargon.

The silence of local political representatives, many of whom belong to the tribal community they represent, adds another layer to this betrayal. Their inability to raise this issue on any public platform points to the immense influence and political patronage enjoyed by the beneficiaries of this scam.

The ultimate tragedy is that the land, acquired in the name of empowering Udaipur's Adivasi children, has been used to build an elite institution that remains out of their reach. The promise of education was merely a key to unlock the treasury of public land, and the key was thrown away once the door was opened. This case exposes a brutal truth: in the intricate web of power, money, and influence, the most noble causes become the most effective tools for exploitation, and the hopes of the most vulnerable are the easiest to sacrifice.