Case: Jasbir Singh Chhabra  Vs. State Of Punjab

been forced to fight this unwarranted litigation. Be that as it may, the writ petitioners cannot, by any stretch of imagination, claim that they had a legitimate expectation in the matter of allotment of plots despite the fact that change of land use was yet to be sanctioned. 28. The doctrine of legitimate expectation has been described in Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th Edn. in the following words: “A person may have a legitimate expectation of being treated in a certain way by an administrative authority even though he has no legal right in private law to receive such treatment. The expectation may arise either from a representation or promise made by the authority, including an implied representation, or from consistent past practice.” 29. In Food Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries (supra), this Court considered whether by submitting tender in response to notice issued by the Food Corporation of India for sale of stocks of damaged food grains, the respondent had acquired a right to have its tender accepted and the appellant was not entitled to reject the same. While approving the view expressed by the High Court that rejection of the highest tender of the writ petitioner-respondent was legally correct, this Court observed: “The mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of a citizen, in such a situation, may not by itself be a distinct enforceable right, but failure to consider and give due weight to it may render the decision arbitrary, and this is how the requirement of due consideration of a legitimate expectation forms part of the principle of non-arbitrariness, a necessary concomitant of the rule of law. Every legitimate expectation is a relevant factor requiring due consideration in a fair decision-making process. Whether the expectation of the claimant is reasonable or legitimate in the context is a question of fact in each case. Whenever the question arises, it is to be determined not according to the claimant’s perception but in larger public interest wherein other more important considerations may outweigh what would otherwise have been the legitimate expectation of the claimant. A bona fide decision of the public authority reached in this manner would satisfy the requirement of non-arbitrariness and withstand judicial scrutiny. The doctrine of legitimate expectation gets assimilated in the rule of law and operates in our legal system in this manner and to this extent.” 30. In Union of India v.Hindustan Development Corporation (supra), the doctrine of legitimate expectation was explained in the following words: “. ... For legal purposes, the expectation cannot be the same as anticipation. It is different from a wish, a desire or a hope nor can it amount to a claim or demand on the ground of a right. However earnest and sincere a wish, a desire or a hope may be and however confidently one may look to them to be fulfilled, they by themselves cannot amount to an assertable expectation and a mere disappointment does not attract legal consequences. A pious hope even leading to a moral obligation cannot amount to a legitimate expectation. The legitimacy of an expectation can be inferred only if it is founded on the sanction of law or custom or an established procedure followed in regular and natural sequence. Again it is distinguishable from a genuine expectation. Such expectation should be justifiably legitimate and protectable. Every such legitimate expectation does not by itself fructify into a right and therefore it does not amount to a right in the conventional sense.” 31. The same principle has been stated and reiterated in Punjab Communications Ltd. v. Union of India, V (1999) SLT 237=(1999) 4 SCC 727 ; Dr. Chanchal Goyal v. State of Rajasthan, II (2003) SLT 269=(2003) 3 SCC 485 ; J.P. Bansal v. State of Rajasthan, III (2003) SLT 94=(2003) 5 SCC 134 ; State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, III (2006) SLT 539=(2006) 4 SCC 1 ; Kuldeep Singh v. Government of NCT of Delhi, V (2006) SLT 713=(2006) 5 SCC 702 ; Ram Pravesh Singh v. State of Bihar, (2006) 8 SCC 381 and Sethi Auto Service Station v. DDA, VIII (2008) SLT 457=(2009) 1 SCC 180. In the last mentioned judgment, the Court referred to various precedents and observed: “..................the golden thread running through all these decisions is that a case for applicability of the doctrine of legitimate expectation, now accepted in the subjective sense as part of our legal jurisprudence, arises when an administrative body by reason of a representation or by past practice or conduct aroused an expectation which it would be within its powers to fulfil unless some overriding public interest comes in the way. However, a person who bases his claim on the doctrine of legitimate expectation, in the first instance, has to satisfy that he has relied on the said representation and the denial of that expectation has worked to his detriment. The Court could interfere only if the decision taken by the authority was found to be arbitrary, unreasonable or in gross abuse of power or in violation of principles of natural justice and not taken in public interest. But a claim based on mere legitimate expectation without anything more cannot ipso facto give a right to invoke these principles.” 32. The plea of discrimination raised by the appellants is being mentioned only to be rejected because no similarity has been pointed out between their cases and the cases of those who had applied for allotment of plots in focal point, Patiala and Phase VIII (Jeevan Nagar), Ludhiana except that a common draw was held in furtherance of advertisement dated 23.3.2004. In any case, in view of our interpretation of the policy decision contained in Memo dated 26.12.2001, the allotment made in two other focal points, cannot enure to the appellants’ advantage and a mandamus cannot be issued in their favour because that would result in compelling the competent authority to sanction change of land use from industrial to residential in contravention of the policy decision taken by the State Government.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]19. In our view, the aforesaid conclusion of the Division Bench of the High Court is not based on correct appreciation of the factual matrix and the background in which the Government declined to sanction change of land use from industrial to residential. It is not in dispute that the State Government acquired land and handed over the same to the Corporation which, as mentioned above, was created for developing infrastructure necessary for industrialization of different areas of the State. The land placed at the disposal of the Corporation was meant to be used for industrial purposes. After carrying out necessary development, the Corporation allotted land to those interested in setting up industrial units. In December 2001, the State Government approved the proposal of the Corporation for earmarkingof the land for Industrial Housing in the existing and coming up focal points and growth centres developed by the Corporation. The object underlying this policy decision was to provide some land for residential purpose to those who had set up or were intending to set up industrial units and the workers already employed or to be employed in such units. It was felt that the availability of residential facility within the focal point or growth centre will help in accelerating industrialization of the area. This is the reason why the phrase ‘Industrialwas used in contrast to the termin Memo dated 26.10.2001. This is also the reason why Plan Approval Committee of the Corporation had, while approving layouts of residential pockets in Phasesparks and multiplex complexes, but unequivocally opposed the idea of allotment of land for housing purposes. The issue was then considered by the State Government and an unequivocal decision was taken not to allow change of land use from industrial to residential. The record produced before the High Court and the documents produced before this Court do not show that the State Government had sanctioned change of land use in PhasesB, Mohali from industrial to commercial and allowed setting up of multiplex complexes within the focal points or growth centres. The writ petitioners have also not placed any material before this Court to show that the State Government had approved conditional allotment of land to M/s. Quark by the Allotment Committee or accepted the tentative recommendation made by it for allotment of land to M/s. A.B. Motion (Pvt.) Ltd. Rather, the events which followed the Staterefusal to sanction change of land use from industrial to residential demonstrate that the said decision was in consonance with the policy of industrialization which was unquestionably in public interest. In August 2004, the Corporation issued an advertisement which was published in ‘Thedated 13.8.2004, inviting applications for 65 industrial plots. In its meeting held on 13.12.2005, the Allotment Committee decided to allot 39.3 acres land in Phasefocal point, Mohali to M/s. Wipro Limited for setting up its unit of Software and I.T. Enabled Services because the same was expected to attract investment of Rs. 1,336 crores and generate employment opportunities for more than 9000 people. The Committee also decided to allot 25 acres land to M/s. Tata Consultancy Services for setting up their Software Development Centre by making an investment of Rs.25 crores with an employment potential of 575 persons. The High Court appears to have been unduly influenced by the fact that the Allotment Committee had considered a proposal for allotment of land to M/s. A.B. Motions (Pvt.) Ltd.. However, in the absence of any tangible or substantive evidence to show that the State Government had taken a conscious decision to allot the surplus land in PhasesB, Mohali for construction of multiplex complexes or for any purpose other than industrial, the Division Bench of the High Court was not at all justified in recording a finding that the decision contained in Memo dated 5.8.2004 is vitiated due to mala fides.The issue deserves to be considered from another angle. Section 79 of the 1995 Act, the applicability of which to the case in hand has not been questioned by the writmandates that after coming into operation of any Master Plan in any area, no person shall use or permit to be used any land or carry out development in that area otherwise than in conformity with such Master Plan. Proviso to this section empowers the competent authority to allow continuance of any use of any land for a maximum period of 10 years for the purpose for which it was being used on the date of enforcement of the Master Plan. Section 81 of that Act lays down the procedure for change of land use. In terms of(2) of Section 81, even a department of the State Government or the Central Government or a local authority is required to notify to the competent authority of its intention to carry out any development in respect of any land or change of use. The competent authority can object to such development or change of land use. In that event, the matter is required to be considered and decided by the State Government. In view of these provisions, the State Government was well within its power to take appropriate decision on the proposal made by the Corporation to change the land use from industrial to residential and we do not find any fault with its decision not to sanction such change.We are in complete agreement with the Division Bench of the High Court that no promise much less an enforceable promise was made by the Corporation to the prospective applicants that by making an application pursuant to the advertisement and on being declared successful in the draw of lots, they will get residential plots. Rather, being conscious of the fact that in terms of the approval accorded by the State Government vide Memo dated 26.12.2001, it could utilizearea of the focal point only for Industrial Housing, the Corporation had made it clear to the prospective applicants that there is no certainty of their getting residential plots in PhasesB, Mohali. The decision taken by Plan Approval Committee of the Corporation to approve the layouts of residential pockets in PhasesB, Mohali was not final. The same was subject to sanction of change of land use in accordance with the provisions of the 1995 Act. The Allotment Committee made a clear recommendation against utilization of surplus land for housing purposes. The writ petitioners were very much aware of the tentative character of the initial advertisement as also the advertisement issued for holding draw of lots. By incorporating note in the second advertisement, which has been reproduced herein above, the Corporation had made it known to every one that the entire exercise was provisional and those who did not want to participate in that exercise were at liberty to seek refund of the earnest money. To put it differently, the Corporation did not make any representation to the prospective applicants which induced them to part with their money or adversely change their position. Therefore, the High Court rightly refused to invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel in favour of the writ petitioners.The plea of the writ petitioners that they had legitimate expectation of being allotted residential plots in Phasesin Mohali because in 2002 138 plots were allotted to the successful applicants sans merit. At the cost of repetition, it is necessary to mention that the writ petitioners had submitted applications knowing fully well that the same would not obligate the Corporation to allot plots to them. It is rather intriguing that even though approval of the layouts of residential pockets in PhasesB, Mohali by Plan Approval Committee of the Corporation was subject to approval being accorded by the competent authority under the 1995 Act for change of land use from industrial to residential, and the Allotment Committee in which Managing Director of the Corporation had taken part, made a negative recommendation in the matter of allotment of land for housing purposes, the same officer authorized issue of advertisement dated 23.3.2004 for holding provisional draw of lots. In our view, this exercise was wholly unnecessary and uncalled for. If the concerned officer had not acted in haste and waited for the decision of the competent authority on the issue of change of land use, the parties may not have been forced to fight this unwarranted litigation. Be that as it may, the writ petitioners cannot, by any stretch of imagination, claim that they had a legitimate expectation in the matter of allotment of plots despite the fact that change of land use was yet to be sanctioned.The plea of discrimination raised by the appellants is being mentioned only to be rejected because no similarity has been pointed out between their cases and the cases of those who had applied for allotment of plots in focal point, Patiala and Phase VIII (Jeevan Nagar), Ludhiana except that a common draw was held in furtherance of advertisement dated 23.3.2004. In any case, in view of our interpretation of the policy decision contained in Memo dated 26.12.2001, the allotment made in two other focal points, cannot enure to theadvantage and a mandamus cannot be issued in their favour because that would result in compelling the competent authority to sanction change of land use from industrial to residential in contravention of the policy decision taken by the State Government.