Public property: Allotment of plot – Advertisement of plot for health center by appellant – Respondent even though being the sole applicant not allotted plot – Challenge to – In a writ petition, direction by the High Court to the appellant to consider respondent’s application – Appellant allotted two plots without any advertisement, in lieu of the plot advertised earlier – Respondent paid the amount demanded by the appellant – Thereafter, writ petition by the respondent disputing the allotment price which was allowed by the Single Judge of the High Court – Said order upheld – On appeal, held: Response to an advertisement does not lead to any obligation on the appellant to allot any plot – Mere fact that the respondent had applied for allotment of a plot does not confer any legal or equitable right to seek allotment of any plot – Appellant was more than indulgent in allotting two plots without any advertisement – Public property could not be disposed of without any advertisement and without giving opportunity to eligible persons to apply and seek consideration of allotment of public property in a transparent and non-discriminatory manner – Thus, the allotment of two plots, on the basis of direction given by the High Court to consider the claim of the respondent, is against the public interest – However, the respondent has constructed hospital which is operational thus, the allotment cannot be cancelled – Action of the respondent to dispute the allotment price after accepting the price is neither fair nor reasonable and cannot be accepted – Appellant as a State is required to act fairly in fixation of price for allotment of a plot – Order of the High Court to direct the appellant to charge the price proportionate to the price advertised earlier has no legal basis and is set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The respondent does not get any right of allotment of a plot merely because it has applied for allotment earlier. The response to an advertisement does not lead to any obligation on the appellant to allot any plot. Admittedly, there was no allotment in pursuance of the offer submitted by the respondent. Mere fact that the respondent had applied for allotment of a plot does not confer any legal or equitable right to seek allotment of any plot. The appellant was more than indulgent in allotting two plots of 24000 sq. feet without any advertisement advertising such plots merely on the basis of the fact that the respondent had applied for allotment at an earlier stage in respect of another plot. The public property could not be disposed of without any advertisement and without giving opportunity to eligible persons to apply and seek consideration of allotment of public property in a transparent and non-discriminatory manner. [Para 25, 26] [456-E-G]
1.2 The very allotment of two plots, on the basis of direction given by the High Court to consider the claim of the respondent, is against the public interest. However, the fact remains that after allotment, the respondent has constructed hospital which is operational therefore; it is too late in the day to cancel the allotment of the plot allotted to the respondent. [Para 27] [457-A-B]
1.3 The respondent has accepted the price on three occasions; firstly on March 21, 2014, then on April 2, 2014 whereby, the respondent remitted a sum of Rs.40 lakhs by two cheques as well. The respondent has accepted the payment schedule but subject to final measurements of plots. It is thereafter the letter of allotment was issued on December 11, 2014. Thirdly, the respondent remitted another sum of Rs.1,71,00,000/- vide three separate cheques in January, 2015 so as to complete 20% of the interim price of letter of allotment dated December 11, 2014. It is thereafter an agreement was executed on March 12, 2015 unequivocally and categorically accepting the offer of the appellant. It was not open to the respondent to dispute the price of allotment offered by the appellant. The respondent is estopped to dispute the allotment price in these circumstances. [Para 28] [457-C-D]
1.4 The appellant as a State is required to act fairly in fixation of price for allotment of a plot. The order of the High Court to direct the appellant to charge the price proportionate to the price advertised earlier has no legal basis. It is a commercial decision taken by the appellant fixing the price of the plot. In the matter of fixation of price, the Board has a right to fix such price, more so, when such price was accepted by the respondent on three different occasions. The action of the respondent to dispute the allotment price after accepting the price is neither fair nor reasonable and cannot be accepted. [Para 30, 31] [457-C-D]
1.5 Keeping in view the cause of allotment of plot i.e. hospital, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, that the interest for the period from the date of filing of the writ petition before the High Court till the date of order of this Court shall not be charged from the respondent provided respondent pays the entire balance sale consideration in terms of the condition of allotment within the stipulated period. [Para 32] [459-A-B]
1.6 The order of the High Court is not sustainable in law, thus, the order is set aside. [Para 33] [459-C]
Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (2011) 5 SCC 29 : [2011] 5 SCR 77 ; Institute of Law, Chandigarh & Ors. v. Neeraj Sharma & Ors. (2015) 1 SCC 720 : [2014] 11 SCR 1096 ; Meerut Development Authority v. Association of Management Studies & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 171 : [2009]
6 SCR 663 ; Uttar Pradesh Housing and Development Board v. Ramesh Chandra Agarwal (2019) 6 SCC
554 ; Style (Dress Land) v. Union Territory, Chandigarh & Anr. (1999) 7 SCC 89 : [1999] 1 Suppl. SCR 591 - referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.