Supreme Court Quashes Arbitrary Plot Allotment

The Supreme Court held the allotment of a larger plot without advertisement as arbitrary and violative of Article 14. The government's actions were criticized for procedural irregularities and non-compliance with ICSE norms. The Court quashed the allotment, directing the allottee to surrender the plot and refunding the money paid. Transparency and adherence to constitutional principles were emphasized.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the allotment of a larger plot without advertisement.
2. Execution and registration of the deed of surrender.
3. Awareness of ICSE norms by the allottee.
4. Compliance with ICSE norms by the Trust.
5. Adherence to the working plan for Salt Lake City.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Allotment of a Larger Plot Without Advertisement:
The Supreme Court held that the allotment of plot no. CA-222 to the allottee was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The government initially advertised for a plot of 50 kathas, to which the allottee responded. However, the subsequent allotment of a larger plot (63.04 kathas) without any advertisement was deemed illegal. The Court emphasized that the government, in distributing largesse, must act fairly and without discrimination, referencing the principles laid down in *Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India* and *M/s Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir*. The Court rejected the argument that the second allotment was merely a change in location, noting that it was a new and larger plot granted in response to the allottee's request.

2. Execution and Registration of the Deed of Surrender:
The Court found that the government acted with undue haste in allotting the new plot without ensuring the surrender of the previously allotted plot. The surrender deed was registered only after the filing of the writ petition, indicating procedural irregularities. The Court noted that the government made the new allotment without verifying whether the previous plot had been surrendered, highlighting the arbitrariness in the government's actions.

3. Awareness of ICSE Norms by the Allottee:
The Court observed that the ICSE norms, which required a larger plot for affiliation, were already in place before the allottee applied for the initial plot. Therefore, the allottee should have been aware of these norms when applying for the first plot. The Court found the allottee's plea for a larger plot to comply with ICSE norms to be unconvincing and not bona fide.

4. Compliance with ICSE Norms by the Trust:
The Court scrutinized the composition of the Trust set up by the allottee to run the proposed school and found it to be non-compliant with ICSE norms. The Trust consisted mainly of family members, contrary to the ICSE requirement that the school should not be controlled by a single individual or family. The Court criticized the High Court for dismissing this objection without proper consideration, stating that the legality of the allotment should be assessed based on the existing material.

5. Adherence to the Working Plan for Salt Lake City:
The Court noted that the plot CA-222 was marked for a college in the working plan for Sector-I of Salt Lake City. The allotment of this plot for an ICSE school was found to be in violation of the plan. The State's inability to refute this contention further supported the conclusion that the allotment was arbitrary.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court quashed the allotment of plot no. CA-222 and the subsequent lease deed, directing the allottee to hand over possession of the plot to the State Government and mandating the government to refund the money paid by the allottee. The appeals were allowed, and the High Court's order was set aside. The Court emphasized the need for government actions to be transparent, non-arbitrary, and in compliance with constitutional principles.

---