Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BENCH
SUBODH ABHYANKAR, SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH, JJ.
Indore Development Authority – Appellant
Versus
Sunil Dangi S/o Shri Umrao Singh Dangi – Respondent
Writ Appeal Nos. 1178, 1179 of 2019
Decided On : 04-11-2022
Legitimate Expectation - Allotment of Plots - Madhya Pradesh Uchha Nyayalaya (Khand Nayaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 - Niyam of 2013 - Rule 5 and 6 - Legitimate expectation not applicable - Disposal of property to be done as per Niyam 2013 - Relief granted by writ Court set aside - Impugned order dated 20.12.2018 set aside - Appeals allowed and disposed of
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition against an advertisement issued by the Indore Development Authority for the sale of 13 residential plots in Scheme No. 94, Sector-E despite being allotted a plot in the same scheme in 1994. The petitioner sought possession of the allotted plot, which was not handed over due to development delays and civil disputes. The IDA later offered an alternate plot in Sector F, which the petitioner did not accept. The petitioner challenged the impugned advertisement seeking allotment of a plot from the available 13 plots in Sector E or allotment of Plot No. T1 or T2 in Sector F.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the doctrine of legitimate expectation would not apply in the case as the allotment was made in 1994 and the subsequent disposal of plots had to be conducted under Niyam 2013. The court also noted that the petitioner had multiple opportunities to participate in the lottery for alternate plots but did not do so. The court set aside the relief granted by the writ Court and allowed and disposed of the appeals.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to claim possession of a plot from the IDA after being allotted a plot in 1994 and not participating in the lottery for alternate plots offered by the IDA.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the doctrine of legitimate expectation would not apply as the allotment was made in 1994 and the subsequent disposal of plots had to be conducted under Niyam 2013. The court also found that the petitioner had multiple opportunities to participate in the lottery for alternate plots but did not do so. Therefore, the relief granted by the writ Court was set aside.
Final Decision: The court allowed and disposed of the appeals, setting aside the relief granted by the writ Court and finding that the doctrine of legitimate expectation would not apply in the case.
JUDGMENT :
SUBODH ABHYANKAR, J.
1. Heard.
2. This order shall govern the disposal of both the writ appeal Nos.1178 and 1179 of 2019 as the common issue involved in these appeals.
3. For the sake of convenience the facts as narrated in W.A. No. 1178 of 2019 are being taken into consideration.
4. This writ appeal has been preferred under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchha Nyayalaya (Khand Nayaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 and the rules made thereunder against the order dated 20.12.2018, passed in W.P. No. 15646 of 2018 filed by the respondent/petitioner Sunil Dangi wherein the writ petition filed against an advertisement dated 02.07.2018 issued by appellant No. 1/respondent No. 1 Indore Development Authority for sale of 13 residential plots in Scheme No. 94, Sector-E despite informing the petitioner that no residential plots are available with the respondents. The learned Judge of the writ Court has partly allowed the petition and has directed the respondents to handover one plot from the available 13 plots in Sector -E or allot Plot No. T1 or T2 which are also vacant in Sector-F.
5. In brief the facts as have been noted by the learned Judge of the writ Court, which are not disputed, are as herein under:
3. The respondents IDA issued an advertisement No. 79/94 dated 27.07.1993 for allotment of residential plots in the Sector-E of Scheme No. 94, Indore. In pursuant to the advertisement the petitioner submitted an application and the same was accepted after following due procedure. That vide letter dated 12.9.1994 he was allotted plot No. 121/EA (area 216.00 square meters on lease for the period of 30 years in total premium amount of Rs.3,24,000/-. At the time of allotment petitioner had deposited 50% of premium amount and further deposited remaining amount in 12 months within the prescribed time. The petitioner made a request to the respondents for handing over the possession of the said plot. The respondents stated that vacant possession of the plot will be handed over after development of the scheme. Thereafter, the petitioner made several request and representations, but physical possession of the plot was not handed over to him on the pretext that some civil dispute is pending, development has not been done etc. land is under encroachment etc. Now the IDA has published an advertisement in the daily newspaper dated 3.7.2018 for sale of 16 residential plots in Sector-E of Scheme No. 94. The petitioner immediately served a legal notice to a respondents that if the plots are vacant and available, then the petitioner is entitled to get the possession in view of the allotment made to him on 12.09.1994 in Sector-E of Scheme No. 94. Thereafter, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the impugned advertisement dt.3.07.2018.
4. By order dt.16.07.2018, this court issued a notice to the respondents and by way of interim relief permitted them to complete the process of allotment, but there shall be no finalization, without prior leave of this court.
5. After notice, the respondents have filed their return admitting the allotment of plot No. 121/EA in favour of the petitioner and also not disputed that he has deposited the entire premium amount. It is contended by the respondents that due to pendency of civil dispute, before the court, the development of work of certain plots including the petitioner’s plot in Sector E could not be completed. There were as many as 105 plots, which could not be developed and the possession could not be given to allottees despite they completed all the formalities and an allotment letters were issued in their favour. In order to consider the grievance of the petitioner, the IDA decided to form the committee. The committee was constituted vide
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the doctrine of legitimate expectation does not apply when the allotment was made in 1994 and the subsequent disposal of plots had to be condu....
The court upheld the doctrine of legitimate expectation, ruling that failure to honor governmental commitments can render actions arbitrary and justifiable under Article 14, necessitating relief for ....
Legitimate expectation arising from prior assurances by a public authority must be honored unless compelling public interest necessitates otherwise.
Doctrine of legitimate expectation affirms that public authorities must act fairly and consider prior assurances when determining allotments, especially in cases of unused land adjacent to existing p....
The doctrine of legitimate expectation mandates public authorities to consider expectations for land allotment based on prior actions and continuous possession, ensuring fair decision-making.
The doctrine of legitimate expectation must be considered by public authorities when deciding land allotments, especially when claimants have consistently occupied the land and parallel allotments ha....
The doctrine of legitimate expectation requires authorities to consider applicants' claims fairly, especially when past practices support their expectations.
The doctrine of legitimate expectation compels public authorities to consider prior practices and fair dealings in land allotment, despite the absence of strict legal entitlements.
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
