Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Arijit Banerjee, Rai Chattopadhyay, JJ.
Prabir Kumar Talukdar – Petitioner
Versus
West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited & Ors. – Respondents
M.A.T. 1309 of 2015 IA No. CAN 1 of 2018 (Old No. 4709 of 2018) With I.A. No: CAN 2 of 2020 With I.A. No: CAN 3 of 2021 With F.M.A. 2752 of 2015 With F.M.A 2754 of 2015 With I.A. No: CAN 1 of 2015 (Old No. C.A.N. 7509 of 2015) With I.A. No: CAN 3 of 2019 (Old No. C.A.N. 1990 of 2019) With F.M.A. 2755 of 2015 With F.M.A. 3172 of 2015 With IA No: C.A.N. 1 of 2015 (Old No. 7949 of 2015) With I.A. No: C.A.N. 3 of 2022 With FMA 3664 of 2015 With I.A. No: C.A.N. 1 of 2015 (Old NO. C.A.N. 12272 of 2015) . With M.A.T. 1069 of 2015 With I.A. No. C.A.N. 1 of 2018 (Old No: C.A.N. 4370 of 2018) With I.A. No: CAN 2 of 2020 With M.A.T. 1129 of 2015 With I.A. No: C.A.N. 1 of 2018 (Old No: C.A.N. 4817 of 2018) With CAN 2 of 2020 With M.A.T. 1174 of 2015 With I.A. No. C.A.N. 1 of 2017 (Old No. C.A.N. 1345 of 2017) With M.A.T. 1342 of 2017 With I.A. No. C.A.N. 1 of 2017 (Old No. C.A.N. 8635 of 2017) With M.A.T. 1763 of 2015 With I.A. No: CAN 2 of 2016 (Old No. C.A.N. 1278 of 2016) With M.A.T. 1899 of 2015 With M.A.T. 370 of 2017 With I.A. No: C.A.N. 1 of 2017 (Old No. 2761 of 2017) With I.A. No: C.A.N. 2 of 2017 (Old No. 2762 of 2017) With F.M.A. 2355 of 2015 With I.A. No: C.A.N. 3 of 2019 (Old No. C.A.N. 264 of 2019)
Decided On : 03-11-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of land allotments by hidco. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court observations on the validity of the cancellation. (Para 12 , 22 , 64 , 68) |
| 3. cancellation of allotments due to irregularities. (Para 15 , 16 , 60 , 71) |
| 4. arguments against clubbing of writ petitions. (Para 18 , 19 , 39) |
| 5. final decisions on the legitimacy of cancellations. (Para 82 , 83 , 84) |
JUDGMENT :
1. The subject matter of challenge in this bunch of appeals is a judgment and order dated May 13, 2015 whereby 61 writ petitions were disposed of. The writ petitions were filed by some of several beneficiaries of allotment of land by West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (in short “HIDCO”) in the extended Calcutta Area which has come to be known as New Town, challenging notices of cancellation of such allotments of land issued subsequently by HIDCO.
2. A brief background of the case leading to filing of the 61 writ petitions may not be out of place.
3. HIDCO was incorporated sometime in the year 1999 as a Government controlled company with the State Government holding approximately 90 per cent of its shares, with the primary object of developing a new township in the north-eastern fringes of the city of Calcutta. A huge area of land was acquired for such purpose by the State Government to enable HIDCO to achieve the aforesaid object. Compensation for such land acquisition was initially planned to be paid by the State Government but was actually paid by HIDCO.
4. At this point, it will be helpful to note that Item no. 17 of the minutes of the 37th meeting of the Board of Directors of HIDCO held on December 29, 2006, records as follows:
Managing Director informed that WB HIDCO LTD. has established itself as a socially conscious Company committed to the Society particularly for economically weaker sections of people of the State. So far small residential plots including LIG, MIG, HIG of both individuals and co-operative categories were allotted to the public on lottery basis subject to reservation of chairman’s quota at 5% which were allotted on the basis of genuine needs including unsuccessful persons and also for other very justified reasons. Most of the bulk plots allotted so far represent allotment to Joint Venture Companies of WBHB, various Central/State Govt. Departments and some others through tendering process. It was felt a bare necessity for reservation of 5% of the total land available for sale/allotment as chairman’s quota including bulk plots.
After a brief discussion, the following resolution was passed:-
“Resolved that approval be and is hereby given for reservation of 5% of total saleable/allotable land in New Town (all inclusives mall plots and bulk plots) as was done in earlier cases as ‘chairman’s quota’ to be used exclusively for land losers. Statebased philanthropic and Social Organisations and for encouraging different organisations, bodies, co-operative/individuals in the state having potential capacity/technical expertise/proven technology etc. but may not be so sound financially to compete in the tendering process (country-wise) and further which if implemented/encouraged will be of great help to the entire society of the State and employment generation amongst people of economically weaker section at such prices as chairman of the Company may finalise.
It was also Resolved that, Managing Director be and is hereby authorized to do all such other acts and things as he may deem fit and appropriate in this connection.”
5. Sometime in the year 2006 HIDCO, by publication in newspapers, invited applications from persons who were interested in acquiring residential plots in New Town under the chairman’s discretionary quota. The last date for making such application was September
Writ petitions can be maintained against administrative actions affecting contracts, especially when principles of natural justice and public policy are at stake.
The cancellation of land allotment was invalid as the respondents failed to follow due process and were estopped from questioning the allotment after five years of acquiescence.
The court emphasized the legal principles related to the disposal of public properties, legitimate expectations, and the authority's discretion in allotment decisions.
The doctrine of promissory estoppel applies against the government, preventing it from changing policy arbitrarily after creating legitimate expectations in individuals.
The duty of public authorities to act in a fair, objective, non-arbitrary, transparent, and non-discriminatory manner in their dealings, and the importance of procedural fairness and principles of na....
Public authorities cannot cite internal policy limitations to deny alternative plots when the initial failure to deliver possession arises from their own lack of due diligence, as such conduct consti....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
