Public allotment and lease cannot be cancelled unilaterally after inducement and reliance where regulations permit individual allotment.

A public authority that executed the lease and confirmation deed, accepted premium and transfer charges, and allowed development to proceed could not later unilaterally cancel the allotment after the allottee altered its position. The absence of a public auction did not by itself invalidate the allotment because the governing regulations also permitted disposal by individual application. The authority's attempt to characterise its own prior action as void or opposed to public policy was rejected, and the cancellation and show cause notice were held unsustainable and quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Corporation could unilaterally cancel the allotment and lease after accepting the premium and transfer charges and after the appellants altered their position; and whether the allotment was void as opposed to public policy under the Contract Act.

Analysis: The allotment was made, the lease and confirmation deed were executed, and development permission was issued under the town planning regime. The appellants acted on those assurances and commenced construction. The Regulations permitted disposal of land by public auction, tender, or individual application, and therefore the mere absence of a public auction did not by itself render the allotment unauthorised. In these circumstances, the Corporation could not resile from its own actions and cancel the allotment unilaterally on the footing that its earlier conduct was void or against public policy. The Court also held that the Corporation's attempt to treat the allotment as contrary to public policy was itself unsustainable.

Conclusion: The unilateral cancellation and the show cause notice were unsustainable and were quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: A public authority that has acted within the scope of regulations permitting individual allotment and has induced the allottee to alter its position cannot later unilaterally cancel the allotment by asserting its own prior action was void or opposed to public policy.

---