Summary
Rival claimants sought settlement of MHADA land, one relying on a provisionally accepted auction bid and the other on earlier private negotiations. With both asserted settlements cancelled and permissible land use fundamentally changed, the Court required a fresh public auction and confined relief to deposit-related directions.
Issues
- Whether either rival acquired an enforceable entitlement to settlement of the government plot.
- Whether changed land use and the passage of time required fresh auction.
- What refund and interest relief was appropriate.
Held
- Jaykrishna’s claim through private negotiation failed: its foundational1999 order had been cancelled in2000 and that cancellation was never challenged despite awareness. Political influence and a later offer could not establish an entitlement to government property outside an open process. (¶ 9)
- Popcorn’s highest bid had only provisional acceptance, not final allotment. Its challenge to the2005 cancellation was belated. Changed permitted use from a hotel to residential housing altered the advertisement’s substratum, and thirteen years and altered development potential reinforced the need for fresh auction. The earlier Supreme Court interim order did not mandate negotiated settlement. (¶ 10–11)
- For the housing project on these facts, the public land had to be auctioned to secure the best price in public interest. Jaykrishna’s deposit was to be refunded within four weeks without interest. Popcorn, though wronged, shared blame through delay and was allowed8% interest on its deposit including earnest money only until24June2005, payable within six weeks. (¶ 11–13)
Result
All appeals dismissed. Fresh public auction required; Jaykrishna’s deposit to be refunded within four weeks without interest, and Popcorn allowed8% interest on its deposit including earnest money only up to24June2005, payable within six weeks.