S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. This is an unsuccessful writ petitioner’s appeal against the judgment and order dated 03.07.2008 of the learned learned Single Judge rejecting its claim.

2. The facts leading up to this dispute can be divided into three phases. The first starts in 1981, when the Land and Development Officer (L&DO) of the Ministry of Urban Affairs, Government of India, allotted 2.762 acres of land (the property in question in the present dispute and hereafter called “the plot”) to the Appellant to build a 250 room hotel and other related facilities for the Asian Games in terms of a letter dated 21.02.1981. As the construction was to be completed in time for the Asian Games in 1982, the Appellant informed the L&DO that such a project was not feasible in that time span and thus, the allotment was cancelled. This cancellation is not disputed by either party in this case.

3. The second phase begins on 18th June, 1983, when the land was allotted by the Ministry of Urban Affairs, Government of India to the Delhi Tourism Development Corporation Ltd (DTTDC) to construct a budget hotel. Clause 8 of the said agreement is pertinent to this dispute. It reads:

“8. The DTTDC shall not sub-lease the land in favour of any other party. They can, however, make such arrangement for constructing and running the hotel as will not involve sub leasing of the plot.”

For eight years, no action was taken by DTTDC under this agreement to construct such a hotel. Ultimately, on 24th February, 1992, an advertisement was issued, inviting global tenders for the construction of the hotel. The present Appellant responded with a bid, along with 12 other bidders. The Appellant’s bid was subsequently accepted (through the DTTDC’s letter dated 8th May, 1992) for building and running, on its behalf, a three star hotel on license basis for a period of 33 years. A license agreement was then entered into between the Appellant and DTTDC on 24.07.1992. Before construction began, however, the Union Ministry of Urban Development informed the Managing Director, DTTDC, New Delhi by a letter (No. LIII/ 8/13(16)/83/392 dated 01.02.1993) that the allotment to it (the DTTDC) of the plot had been cancelled as a result of its failure to construct a budget hotel up until that time, and for violation of Clause 8 of the Agreement between the two parties by way of entering into alicense agreement with the Appellant. This letter of cancellation, in its relevant part, reads as follows:

“This land was allotted to you at highly concessional rates without recovery of premium for setting up a Budget Hotel charging low tariff. However, the Budget Hotel has not been constructed and commissioned. But it has come to the notice that you have entered into an agreement with M/s East India Hotels Ltd. to run the hotel which is against the terms and conditions of the allotment offered on 18.6.83.”

Notice of this cancellation was also provided to the DTTDC by another letter dated 04.06.1993 [No. L.III/8/13(16)/83/107].

4. The Appellant made several representations, subsequent to cancellation of the allotment, to the concerned authorities, claiming to be aggrieved (by the letter of cancellation). Eventually a decision was taken by the Union Ministry of Urban Development to cancel the allotment to the DTTDC, but allot the land directly to the Appellant. This is clear from the Counter Affidavit of one Mr. LD Ganotra, Engineering Officer with L&DO, Union Ministry of Urban Affairs in W.P.(C) 3016/2000, where it was stated in paragraph 3 that:

“Since the DTTDC had acted in clear breach of the terms and conditions of allotment, the allotment was cancelled by the L& DO on 1.2.1993. The DTTDC as well as the Delhi Government made representations to the Union of India against the said cancellation. The matter was discussed in a number of meetings in the various departments and finally on 19th October 1993 in a meeting presided by the Secretary, Union Ministry of Urban Development (in the meeti