Defaulting bidder cannot claim nazul property transfer or freehold rights through equitable relief or an unrelated welfare statute.

A defaulting bidder cannot obtain transfer of nazul property through equitable directions when the agreement itself provided that non-payment would render it void and permit resale. The Court held that no enforceable right arose to compel acceptance of belated balance consideration or delivery of the plot. It also held that the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 could not be used to create a proprietary entitlement or support transfer of the plot on payment of current market price, as the statute did not govern allotment or sale of land to educational institutions. The appellants likewise had no continuing right to freehold conversion after expiry of the original lease, and stale claims could not defeat the quashing of conversion proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the agreement dated 12.01.1996 created an enforceable right to compel acceptance of the balance sale consideration and delivery of the plot; (ii) whether the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 could be used to direct transfer of the plot to the school on payment of current market price; (iii) whether the appellants were entitled to freehold conversion of plot No. 92A/C and whether the action taken pursuant to the order dated 04.05.2009 was liable to be quashed.

Issue (i): Whether the agreement dated 12.01.1996 created an enforceable right to compel acceptance of the balance sale consideration and delivery of the plot.

Analysis: The bid had been cancelled for non-payment of the balance price, and the later governmental arrangement could not revive a right that had already failed on account of default. The agreement itself contained a clear stipulation that failure to pay the installments would render it void and permit resale of the plot. The school did not pay the installments and remained in default for years. The subsequent governmental and administrative actions therefore did not create a legally enforceable entitlement to insist on a mandamus.

Conclusion: The agreement did not create an enforceable right, and no mandamus could be issued to compel acceptance of the balance amount.

Issue (ii): Whether the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 could be used to direct transfer of the plot to the school on payment of current market price.

Analysis: The statutory scheme relied upon by the High Court did not deal with allotment or sale of land to educational institutions. The writ petition did not specifically claim relief on that basis, and the High Court could not grant a new substantive relief on a statute that had no direct bearing on the dispute. The direction to transfer the plot on market price was also inconsistent with the finding that the school had defaulted under the agreement and had approached the Court after a long delay.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in invoking the 2009 Act to direct transfer of the plot on payment of current market price.

Issue (iii): Whether the appellants were entitled to freehold conversion of plot No. 92A/C and whether the action taken pursuant to the order dated 04.05.2009 was liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The original garden lease had expired long before, and the lessee had no continuing lawful entitlement to the plot. After auction and possession in favour of the school, the appellants could not claim a better title merely through the earlier leasehold arrangement. Their attempt to secure freehold rights on a stale claim was treated as an abuse of process, and the conversion ordered on a nominal amount would have caused serious loss to the public exchequer. The High Court therefore rightly quashed the conversion proceedings initiated in their favour.

Conclusion: The appellants were not entitled to freehold conversion, and the quashing of the conversion proceedings was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The school's challenge to the denial of enforcement failed, the appellants' claim to freehold rights failed, and only the relief directing transfer of the plot to the school on market price was set aside, while the quashing of the appellants' freehold proceedings was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A defaulting bidder or claimant cannot secure transfer of nazul property through equitable directions or a stale representation when the underlying agreement has become void by its own terms, and a court cannot invoke an unrelated welfare statute to confer a proprietary entitlement not created by law.

---