Summary
A hospital institute accepted alternative plots, paid instalments and executed an agreement, then challenged the allotment price. The Court held that an earlier application created no right to an allotment and that the original plot’s price did not determine the price of different plots. Repeated acceptance and the concluded agreement estopped the institute from disputing the price on these facts. The High Court’s price-reduction order was set aside.
Issues
- Whether an earlier application conferred a right to alternative public plots at a proportionate original price.
- Whether the allottee could dispute the price after payments and execution of the agreement.
Held
- Application in response to an advertisement did not itself confer a legal or equitable right to allotment. Public land disposal must afford equal opportunity through a transparent process; the unadvertised alternative allotment was contrary to public interest. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27)
- The different location and area defeated reliance on the earlier advertised price. Having repeatedly accepted the price, made payments and executed the agreement, the institute could not reopen that price in the circumstances. The High Court’s proportionate-price direction lacked legal basis. (¶¶ 21, 28, 29, 30, 31)
- The completed operational hospital made cancellation inappropriate at that stage. Although delayed payments ordinarily attracted interest, the Court granted conditional relief under Article 142 because the allotment served a hospital. (¶¶ 27, 32)
Result
The Board’s appeal was allowed and the High Court order set aside. Interest for the period from filing the High Court writ petition to this judgment was waived provided the institute paid the entire balance sale consideration under the allotment terms within six months.