High Court quashes JDA order cancelling land allotment

Excelsior Correspondent

JAMMU, July 22: Applying the legal doctrine of ‘estoppel by acquiescence’ and the concept of ‘approval and disapproval’, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has set aside the order cancelling allotment of land by the Jammu Development Authority (JDA) with the direction of regularisation of possession.
Petitioner Kamran Ali Khan of Mohalla Dalpatian Jammu, through a petition, has challenged the order No. JDA/LS/40-42 dated 11.04.2012 by which the land allotted and duly leased in favour of the petitioner was cancelled without any cogent or valid reasons.
The petitioner belonging to the Scheduled Tribes category had applied for award of Retail Concession Agreement from Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited on 29.12.2004 and after qualifying the interview and fulfilling all the mandatory formalities and other conditions precedent, BPCL issued a Letter of Intent dated 8.8.2005 in favour of the petitioner wherein it proposed to offer its Retail Concession Agreement at Circular Road, Jammu District in favour of the petitioner.
The respondent authorities while allotting the land in question in favour of the petitioner imposed certain conditions and prerequisites on the petitioner and the JDA after obtaining payment of the entire cost of the land and other formalities as contemplated in the order of allotment entered into a lease deed dated 30.04.2008 which was duly registered before the Sub-Registrar, Sub-Judge, Jammu on 06.05.2008.
The subdivision was granted in favour of the applicant in 2007 but the impugned notice of demand was issued after five long years and the cancellation order was made on 11th April 2012. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondents are legally estopped from challenging the subdivision or the proceedings after five long years by way of notice of demand, which resulted in the cancellation order.
After hearing both the parties, Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed that “the award made by the respondent ministry was based on the decision taken by the 66th meeting of the board of directors which, in no event, could have been reversed by the respondent authorities, even after a lapse of five long years, on the basis of the same authority.”
“It goes without saying that the vested right has been vested in favour of the petitioner when the lease deed was executed in accordance with law and there was no act of commission or omission on the part of the petitioner justifying the cancellation of the allotment already made,” the High Court said, adding, “a careful perusal of the show cause notice reveals that the same was served by the respondents with a preconceived idea of ​​cancelling the allotment. It is evident from the record itself that the contents which have been used in the show cause notice do not merely reflect the reason to show cause but the ulterior motive to cancel the allotment already made in favour of the petitioner.”
“Even otherwise, the respondents, after acquiescing to the right in favour of the petitioner by executing a lease deed in favour of the petitioner and remaining silent for five long years, are legally estopped from questioning the validity of the order of grant or, for that matter, the execution of the lease deed in favour of the petitioner,” the High Court said, adding, “thus, the law of estoppel by conduct and acquiescence applies to the respondents. On this count, the action of the respondents in passing the impugned order of cancellation cannot stand the test of law.”
Referring to numerous judgments of the Supreme Court, the High Court set aside the impugned cancellation order, which is an emanation of the show cause notice, and directed the petitioner to retain the amount of Rs 36,76,471 in the account of the respondent JDA within a period of two weeks.
“Subject to doing the same, the respondent-JDA is, accordingly, directed to regularise the possession in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the allotment order issued in 2007, followed by the lease deed issued in 2008, in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner is free to use the property in question,” the High Court judgment read.