Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The appellant did not like this. They approached this court in or about February, 2013 by filing the instant writ application. They challenged the decision taken in the meeting of the directors at HIDCO on 30th July, 2012 cancelling the allotment. They also challenged the letter of cancellation of allotment dated 24th August, 2012 made by HIDCO. They also attacked the letter dated 12th October, 2012 forwarding the draft lease deed as also the letter dated 6th December, 2012 and 14th January, 2013 of the organization.

The question which falls for consideration is not unknown in administrative law. Yet it is of great importance in the administration of land matters in this state. HIDCO, which is an organ of the Government of West Bengal entered into a contract with the appellant by issuing the letter of allotment of this large parcel of land, to be conveyed as a freehold to them. The entire consideration was paid by the latter. After receiving the entire consideration HIDCO resiled from this transaction citing policy considerations. HIDCO was no longer interested in conveying this land freehold but proposed to grant a lease with conditions attached to it like restrictions on sub-leasing, division etc. Could the obligations accepted by the government be avoided by citing policy? In fact, the formal policy came on 26th December, 2012 after cancellation of the allotment on 24th August, 2012. The essence of the policy was that it was not proper on the part of the government to have offered the land freehold. It could only be offered on freehold terms. The question is whether there was at all an enforceable contract between the government and the appellant because the letter of allotment was not properly stamped or registered to assume the character of an agreement for sale. Another significant issue is whether this court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction should entertain this matter or it should be relegated to a civil court or civil forum?

Lastly, learned counsel argued that the subject matter of the dispute involved, inter alia, interpretation of contractual terms, adjudication of alleged breach of contract, law of specific performance, damages and so on which could be more properly adjudicated in a suit in a civil forum. He made a statement that HIDCO was prepared to refund the amount deposited with them by the appellant.

Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, learned advocate made submissions, thereafter, on behalf of HIDCO. He reiterated the submission made by the learned additional Advocate General. He had a few things to add. He said that the contract was non-statutory. Contractual rights had been modified by an administrative act proposing to convert freehold into a lease. The remedy if at all was a civil forum.

He cited Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in AIR 1951 SC 41 to assert that a contractual right was not a right to property. He also referred to Union of India & Ors Vs. M/S. Indo-Afghan Agencies Ltd. reported in AIR 1968 SC 718 and an unreported decision of a learned single judge of this court rendered on 29th August, 2019 upholding cancelation of allotment.

In reply Mr. Saha cited Sunil Pannalal Banthia & Ors. Vs. City & Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. & Anr. reported in (2007) 10 SCC 674 for the proposition that after an allotment was made or promised the plea of illegality or public policy could not be taken by the government. The letter of allotment of this large parcel of land was issued by HIDCO, an organ of the government on 6th April, 2011, in favour of the appellant. Further the appellant had paid Rs.4.92 crores which was appropriated by the vendor HIDCO. Possession was retained by them, he said.