Arbitrary allotment of public property cannot stand when statutory procedure is ignored and selections are made on a pick-and-choose basis.

Cross-objections in an appeal arising from writ proceedings were held not maintainable because the statutory CPC device does not ordinarily extend to writ appeals, and the delay in filing them was not condoned for want of sufficient cause. The school-site allotments were also found unlawful because they departed from the governing statutory scheme, lacked pre-determined premium, prescribed procedure, clear terms and a uniform criterion, and reflected arbitrary pick-and-choose selection. Public-interest arguments and subsequent construction could not cure the illegality. The allotments were quashed and fresh disposal of the sites was directed in accordance with the statutory framework.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether cross-objections filed in an appeal arising out of writ proceedings were maintainable and whether delay in filing them could be condoned; (ii) Whether the allotment of school sites by the development authority was lawful, non-arbitrary and in conformity with the governing Act and Regulations, and whether the allotments could be sustained on public-interest considerations despite being found illegal.

Issue (i): Whether cross-objections filed in an appeal arising out of writ proceedings were maintainable and whether delay in filing them could be condoned.

Analysis: The right to file cross-objections is a statutory right linked to proceedings under the Code of Civil Procedure, and that procedural device does not ordinarily extend to appeals arising from writ jurisdiction. The filed cross-objections were also barred by limitation, and no sufficient ground was shown for condonation of delay.

Conclusion: The cross-objections were not maintainable and the delay was not condoned.

Issue (ii): Whether the allotment of school sites by the development authority was lawful, non-arbitrary and in conformity with the governing Act and Regulations, and whether the allotments could be sustained on public-interest considerations despite being found illegal.

Analysis: The allotments were required to conform to the statutory scheme under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 and the Haryana Development (Disposal of Land and Building) Regulations, 1978. The process was undertaken without pre-determining tentative premium, without following the prescribed procedure, without notifying clear terms and conditions, and without any settled uniform criterion. The selections reflected arbitrary preference and a pick and choose approach, which was incompatible with the rule of law and the standards governing disposal of public property. Once the allotments were held unconstitutional and illegal, they could not be allowed to continue merely because some allottees had raised constructions or because the matter was said to involve public interest.

Conclusion: The allotments were illegal, arbitrary and capricious, and the allotments in favour of the private respondents were quashed.

Final Conclusion: The judgment under appeal was modified to the extent necessary to cancel the impugned allotments and to require fresh disposal of the school sites in accordance with the statutory framework, thereby granting relief to the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: Disposal of public property must conform to the governing statutory procedure and must be transparent, fair and non-arbitrary; an allotment made on a pick and choose basis is liable to be struck down and cannot be saved by subsequent private expenditure or asserted public interest.

---