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.

JUDGMENT :

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE: -
1. Before examining the rival contentions of the parties, it would be apposite to refer to the basic facts of the case, which are, in nutshell, summarized as follows.

2. The petitioner through the medium of instant amended petition has called-in-question the order No. JDA/LS/40-42 dated 11.04.2012, whereby, according to the petitioner, the land allotted and duly leased in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled without any cogent or valid reason in law. Besides this, the petitioner is seeking a Writ in the nature of Prohibition, restraining the respondent-authorities from taking the possession of the land from the petitioner, which otherwise has been given to the petitioner after completion of all the necessary formalities. The petitioner is also seeking a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the respondents to account for the losses and damages suffered by the petitioner on account of the illegal acts of the respondents and also permit the petitioner to make use of the said land for the purpose in addition to the purpose for which it has been allotted by way of additional or alternative relief.

3. It is contended in the instant petition that allotment was made in favour of the petitioner in respect of the land falling under Khasra No. 179 measuring 01 Kanal 16 Marlas and 208 Sq. feet and the petitioner had fulfilled all the necessary formalities vis-à-vis payment of cost of the land, as fixed by the respondent-authorities as also, shifting of HT/LT Line passing over the land. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been enjoying the possession of the land in question for about more than five years and even the cost of the land amounting to Rs.36,76,471/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lacs, Seventy Six Thousand, Four Hundred and Seventy One) has also been paid by the petitioner to the respondent-Jammu Development Authority (in short, the “JDA”).

4. The specific case of the petitioner is that the JDA, without any authority of law and after a lapse of five years, has issued a show cause notice dated 17.12.2012 Vide No VC/DS/2012/70, which has been placed on record and subsequently, the respondent has issued the cancellation order dated 11.04.2012, which is impugned in the present amended petition. It is pleaded by the Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that after fulfilling all the mandatory requirements, petitioner was allotted the land in question and the respondent-authorities, i.e., JDA were not legally justified in issuing the order impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

5. It is further contended in the instant petition that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe Category and, as such, had applied for the award of Retail Outlet Dealership of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “BPCL”) on 29.12.2004 and after qualifying the interview and fulfilling all the mandatory formalities, and other prerequisites, the BPCL issued a letter of Intent dated 08.08.2005 in favour of the petitioner, wherein it proposed to offer its Retail Outlet Dealership at Circular Road, District Jammu in favour of the petitioner.

6. The respondent-Authorities while allotting the land in question in favour of the petitioner, imposed certain conditions and pre-requisites upon the petitioner, which included the expenditure for shifting the HT/LT line passing over the land in question and depositing of an amount of Rs.36,76,471/- on account of cost of the land. The petitioner in furtherance of the said allotment order and the conditions laid down therein, deposited the whole amount, as demanded by the JDA-authorities vide DD No. 335112 dated 30.04.2007 amounting to Rs.7.00 lacs, DD No. 810766 dated 20.06.2007 amounting to Rs.15.00 Lacs and further DD No. 0256236 dated 09.08.2007 amounting to Rs.43,700/- for shifting of HT/LT lines with the Elect and M&RE Division II, Jammu and the petitioner has placed on record the receipts in this regard.

7.