Ownership of land requires all co-owners to execute a lease deed; consent letters cannot suffice for eligibility.

1. Heard Shri Yash Padia, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Archana Singh, learned counsel for the Oil Corporation and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Challenge has been raised to the order dated 14.02.2024 passed by the Divisional Retail Sale Head - respondent No. 3, rejecting the petitioners grievance petition, arising from earlier rejection of his provisional allotment.

3. Undeniably, the petitioner applied for allotment of retail outlet under the 2023 guidelines of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as IOCL). The application itself was filed on 14.08.2023. The land offered for the allotment does not belong to the petitioner or his family members. The petitioner applied on the strength of lease deed executed by co - owner of plot bearing Gata No. 191, namely Santosh Kumar. At the same time, it is undisputed to the petitioner that the said plot is recorded in the name of two others namely, Bhimsen and Awadhesh Kumar. Yet, the lease deed relied by the petitioner dated 26.07.2023 was executed by only one of the three co - owners namely, Santosh Kumar.

4. Upon objection being raised by the IOCL, the petitioner relied on a partition deed between the co - owners of plot No. 191. It is dated 31.01.2024. In such facts, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on Clause 4(vi)(m) read with Note - 3 appended to said clause and Appendix - III to the Brochure for the Selection of Dealers For Regular and Rural Retail Outlet, June, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the Brochure).

5. Thus it has been submitted, the petitioner had filed No Objection Certificate of the other co - owners Awadhesh and Bhimsen with his original application. Heavily, relying on the situation '3' contemplated under Clause 4(vi)(m) of the Brochure referred to above, it has been submitted, IOCL should have acted on the strength of the consent letters submitted on form Appendix - III.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the IOCL has submitted, undeniably the lessors are not family members of the petitioner. Therefore, situation '3' of Clause - 4(vi)(m) of the Brochure would not apply to the present fact. In fact, Clause 4 (vi)(a) would apply. Since, joint lease deed (executed by all co - owners) was not submitted by the petitioner along with his application, it has rightly been cancelled.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, first, the relevant Clause 4(vi)(a) and (m) of the Brochure may be noted. Those read as below: -

"(vi) Land (Applicable to all categories):

The applicants would be classified into three groups as mentioned below based on the land offered or land not offered by them in the application form: -

Group - 1: Applicants having suitable piece of land in the advertised location / area either by way of ownership / long term lease for a period of minimum 19 years 11 months or as advertised by the OMC.

Group - 2: Applicants having Firm Offer for a suitable piece of land for purchase or long - term lease for a period of minimum 19 years 11 months or as advertised by the OMC.

Group - 3: Applicants who have not offered land in the application. Only applicable for locations advertised under SC / ST category.

Applications under Group - 3 would be processed / advised to offer land (Annexure - D) only in case no eligible applicant is found or no applicant get selected under Group - 1 and Group - 2.

In case land offered by all the applicants under Group 1 and Group 2 is found not suitable / not meeting requirements, then these applicant / s under Group - 1 and Group - 2 along with applicants under Group - 3 (who did not offer land along with appli