Uncommunicated auction acceptance creates no enforceable right; estoppel cannot compel a public authority to act against law or public interest.

An uncommunicated and legally ineffective acceptance of an auction bid did not create an enforceable right to completion of the sale or to an alternate plot. The Court held that a mere file entry and deposit of 25% of the bid amount did not amount to a completed transfer or grant, especially where the property was in a green-belt area and the auction process had already been stayed. Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act was inapplicable, and the doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel could not be used to compel a public authority to act contrary to law or public interest. The direction to allot an alternate plot was set aside, though refund with interest was ordered.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents acquired an enforceable right to completion of the auction sale or to an alternate plot on the basis of an acceptance of bid that was neither complete nor valid, and whether Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act could be invoked against the authority.

Analysis: The plot was located in the green-belt and ought not to have been put to auction. The acceptance recorded by the competent authority could not confer any right because it was entered after the High Court had already stayed the process and, in any event, it was never communicated to the respondents. A mere entry on the file and deposit of 25% of the bid amount did not amount to a completed transfer or grant. In these circumstances, there was no foundation for invoking the doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel, and no estoppel could operate against statute or public interest. The long lapse of time also did not justify directing allotment of an alternate plot at the same price in the same locality.

Conclusion: The respondents acquired no enforceable right to the plot or to an alternate plot, and Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act was inapplicable.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded, the direction to allot an alternate plot was set aside, and the respondents' writ claim failed, though refund of the deposited amount with interest was directed.

Ratio Decidendi: An uncommunicated and legally ineffective acceptance of an auction bid does not create a completed transfer or enforceable right, and estoppel cannot be used to compel a public authority to act contrary to law or public interest.

---