Transparent disposal of State land required fair competition; private allotments without openness were held arbitrary and cancellable.

Government land allotments made on private applications, without public invitation or a transparent competitive process, were found arbitrary. Although the disposal regulations permitted auction, tender, or consideration of individual applications, that discretion had to be exercised fairly, transparently, and without favouritism. The allotments were made to the same person in different capacities, with no disclosed reasoned basis for bypassing public auction or tender. In State largesse matters, equal treatment, a discernible policy, and avoidance of nepotism or arbitrariness are required. The cancellation was therefore justified, and the original allotments were liable to be cancelled as contrary to public interest and public policy.

---

---

Issues: Whether allotment of Government land made on private applications, without public invitation or a transparent competitive process, was arbitrary and opposed to public policy so as to justify cancellation of the allotments.

Analysis: Regulation 4 of the applicable land disposal regulations permitted disposal by public auction, tender, or consideration of individual applications, but the power had to be exercised fairly, transparently, and without arbitrariness. The allotments in question were made in favour of the same person in different capacities, without inviting wider competition, and the record did not disclose a transparent process or a reasoned basis showing why public auction or tender was not adopted. In the context of State largesse, the governing principles require a sound, discernible policy, equal treatment, and avoidance of favouritism or nepotism. The Court held that the cancellation was justified because the manner of allotment lacked transparency and was contrary to public interest and public policy.

Conclusion: The challenge to the cancellation failed, and the allotments were held liable to be cancelled as the original disposals were arbitrary and not in conformity with the required standards of public law.

---