The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for transparency and fairness in the allocation of government largesse, the limitations on the State's power to deprive a person of property under Article 300A, and the need for a proper selection process in such transactions.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioners have assailed the decision of cancellation of allotment taken in the 67th Meeting of the Board of Directors of the respondent no. 2 held on July 30, 2012. They have also challenged the letter dated August 24, 2012 issued by the General Manager (Marketing) - I of the respondent no. 2.

2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that, the petitioner was allotted a plot of land for the purpose of establishing a modern showroom/commercial unit in the action area IIE of Jyoti Basu Nagar (erstwhile New Town), Kolkata. The decision to allot such plot was taken by the Board of Directors of the respondent no. 2 in its 56th Meeting held on December 21, 2010. The first petitioner was allotted 10 cottahs of the land at such area. In its 57th Meeting, the Board of Directors of the respondent no. 2 decided to allot 30 cottahs of land to the first petitioner. The respondent no. 2 allotted 30 cottahs of land bearing Plot No. IIE/17 within action area IIE of Jyoti Basu Nagar (erstwhile New Town), Kolkata on freehold basis at the price of Rs. 4,00,92,000/-. The petitioners paid the entire amount of Rs. 4,00,92,000. Subsequent to the payment of the entire consideration, a joint measurement was undertaken. Subsequently, by the impugned writing dated August 24, 2012, the respondent no. 2 purported to contend that, the policy decision of the respondent no. 2 had allegedly underwent a change. The respondent no. 2 was no longer willing to execute a deed for sale of the land on freehold basis. The respondent no. 2 was willing to grant a long-term lease in respect of the plot. The petitioner had protested against the same.

3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, a concluded contract came into being between first petitioner and the respondent no. 2 with regard to 30 cottahs plot of land. He has submitted that, the petitioner had discharged all its obligations under such contract. The respondent no. 2 is obliged to execute a deed of conveyance in respect of such plot of land on freehold basis. The subsequent change in policy, cannot override the concluded contract. A party to the contract cannot be allowed to alter the essential terms of the contract unilaterally. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Vodafone ESSAR Gujarat Ltd., (2016) 16 SCC 1).

4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, right to acquire a property is a right to property and is recognised to be so under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. The so-called change in policy is subsequent to the concluded contract. Such change is immaterial. It cannot affect a concluded contract. In any event, a policy is prospective in nature and cannot override the terms and conditions of a concluded contract. In support of his contentions he had relied upon (Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (1982) 1 SCC 39), (Chandigarh Housing Board v. Major-General Devinder Singh (Retd.) & Anr., (2007) 9 SCC 67),

5. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners has relied upon (Delhi Development Authority & Anr. v. Joint Action Committee, Allottee of SFS Flats & Ors., (2008) 2 SCC 672) in support of the contention that, what cannot be done by a regulation cannot be done by an executive action. The State could not have modified the terms of the contract by a law. The State is therefore precluded from setting up the defence of change of policy to deny the just claim of the petitioners.

6. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent no. 1 has submitted that, the first petitioner had approached the respondent no. 2 for allotment of land. Such allotment was made at the request of the first petitioner. Upon the allotment being made, the petitioners did not acquire any right to use, possess or dispose of the immovable property concerned. The State took a decision that, no immovable property will be gi