POORANMAL PHOOLA DEVI MEMORIAL TRUST vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN

[2026:RJ-JP:20300]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5717/2025
1. Pooranmal Phoola Devi Memorial Trust, Having Its
Registered Office At H.no.5449, Prem Bhawan, K.g.b. Ka
Rasta, Johari Bazar, Jaipur (Rajasthan)-302003 Through
Its Managing Trustee Dr. S.s. Agarwal.
2. Dr. S.s. Agarwal S/o Late Shri Kalyan Prasad Agarwal,
Aged About 70 Years, Managing Trustee, Pooranmal
Phoola Devi Memorial Trust Having Its Registered Office
At H.no.5449, Prem Bhawan, K.g.b. Ka Rasta, Johari
Bazar, Jaipur (Rajasthan)-302003.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Urban
Development And Housing Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Jaipur Development Authority, Through Its Secretary,
Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, Indira Circle, Jawahar Lal
Nehru Marg, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
3. Deputy Commissioner, Zone-9, Jaipur Development
Authority, Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, Indira Circle,
Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak with
Ms. Shefali Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.D. Gathala, AGC
Mr. Ajay Shukla with
Mr. Raghav Sharma
Ms. Jyoti Sharma
Mr. Shivam Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment
1 Arguments concluded on 30/04/2026
2 Judgment Reserved on 30/04/2026
3 Full Judgment or Operative Part Pronounced Full Judgment
4 Pronounced on 25/05/2026
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:19:45 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 12:03:06 PM)

(2 of 38)
[2026:RJ-JP:20300] [CW-5717/2025]
REPORTABLE :
1. The present petition has been instituted impugning the illegal
and arbitrary action of the respondent–Jaipur Development
Authority, (hereinafter referred to as ‘JDA’), whereby the second,
third, and fourth installments deposited by the petitioner-trust
towards allotment of land for the development of a hospital and
medical education facility have been unilaterally refunded, and the
allotment of land was cancelled, without any prior notice or
intimation to the petitioner, sans granting any opportunity of
hearing; thus resulting in gross violation of the principles of
natural justice.
SUBMISSIONS MADE BY LEARNED COUNSEL
REPRESENTING THE PETITIONERS :
2. At the outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner–trust apprised this Court with regard to the locus standi
of the present petitioners. It was submitted that the petitioner No.
1-Pooranmal Phoola Devi Memorial Trust, is a duly registered trust
(Trust deed annexed as annexure no.2) and is governed by the
provisions of the Rajasthan Improvement (Disposal of Urban Land)
Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1974’). It was
further submitted that petitioner No. 2, Dr. S.S. Agarwal, is the
Managing Trustee (Authorization letter annexed as annexure no.1)
of the said trust and is duly authorized to represent and espouse
the cause of the trust in the present proceedings. Learned counsel
further contended that the petitioner–trust is actively engaged in
the field of medical education within the State of Rajasthan for
several decades and has been rendering services in the said
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:19:45 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 12:03:06 PM)

(3 of 38)
[2026:RJ-JP:20300] [CW-5717/2025]
domain since the year 1980. It was emphasized that the trust has
established a credible standing and experience in promoting
medical education and allied healthcare facilities. It was further
submitted that, with a bona fide intention to expand its activities
and to contribute towards the development of hospital
infrastructure and medical educational institutions, the petitioner–
trust had approached the State Government in the year 2015,
seeking allotment of suitable land for the aforesaid purposes.
Pursuant thereto, a recommendation came to be made in favour of
the petitioner-trust for allotment of land for establishing a hospital
and medical education center/college, in furtherance of its stated
objectives.
3. In the aforesaid backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioners
th
further submitted that, in the 118 meeting of the Land and
Building Disposal Committee held on 30.07.2015, a
recommendation was made for allotment of land on concessional
rates. It was further submitted that the said recommendation
attained further affirmation at the highest administrative level,
rd
inasmuch as in the 3 meeting of the Cabinet Empowered
Committee of the State Government held on 29.09.2021, a
conscious decision was taken to allot the subject land to the
petitioner–trust itself. Despite such decision, there was an
inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the authorities,
and only after a lapse of nearly eight years from the initial
recommendation, the State Government issued directions to the
respondent–JDA to proceed with the allotment of land in terms of
the decision taken in the year 2021.
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:19:45 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 12:03:06 PM)

(4 of 38)
[2026:RJ-JP:20300] [CW-5717/2025]
4. Pursuant thereto, and in compliance with the directions so
issued by the State Government, and taking into consideration the
nature of activities undertaken by the trust and its objective of
establishing medical and healthcare infrastructure, the
respondent–JDA proceeded to issue an allotment letter dated
22.03.2023 (Annexure-4) in favour of the petitioner–trust,
whereby land admeasuring 64,890 square meters (hereinafter
referred to as ‘property in question’) situated at Village Jirota
came to be allotted for the stated purpose.
5. Learned counsel further submitted that, in furtherance of its
avowed objectives, the petitioner–trust, on or about 12.11.2024,
comprehended a comprehensive plan to establish a medical
education complex along with a hospital, on the property in
question, with the intent of augmenting medical education and
healthcare services in the region. In furtherance of the said
objective, a Memorandum of Understanding came to be executed
between the State Government and the petitioner–trust,
delineating the framework for development of the proposed
project. It was additionally submitted that, even prior to and in
furtherance of the said project, the petitioner–trust had diligently
obtained requisite permissions and no-objection certificates
(hereinafter referred to as ‘NOC’) from the competent authorities.
In this regard, an NOC dated 06.10.2022 was issued by the
Medical and Health Department, Government of Rajasthan.
Further, an NOC dated 03.02.2023 was issued by the Department
of Medical Education, Government of Rajasthan, followed by
another NOC dated 22.03.2023 from the Department of AYUSH,
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:19:45 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 12:03:06 PM)

(5 of 38)
[2026:RJ-JP:20300] [CW-5717/2025]
Government of Rajasthan. It was also apprised to the Court that
considering the location and statutory requirements, the
petitioner–trust had applied for grant of an NOC from the Airports
Authority of India, which, upon due consideration, granted its
approval vide NOC dated 03.09.2024, thereby permitting
construction of the proposed medical education complex and
hospital, subject to applicable conditions. Thus it unambiguous
that the petitioner–trust had at every stage, acted with due
diligence and in compliance with all requisite statutory and
administrative requirements for establishment of the proposed
project.
6. It was further submitted that, in terms of the allotment letter
dated 22.03.2023, the petitioner–trust was required to deposit a
total consideration of Rs.27,98,38,125/-, payable in four
installments, namely:
(i) the first installment of Rs.7,34,57,608/-,
(ii) the second installment of Rs.6,99,59,531/-,
(iii) the third installment of Rs.6,99,59,531/-, and
(iv) the fourth and final installment of Rs.6,99,59,532/-.
For the sake of handiness the relevant portion from the
allotment letter dated 22.03.2023 is reproduced hereinbelow:
mDr Hkw[k.M ds isVs ys; utjkuk jkf”k :i;s
279838125@&,d o’kZ dh vof/k esa 4 leku fd”rksa esa fcuk
C;kt fuEukuqlkj tek djk;h tkuh gS%&
1- izFke fd”r%&
utjkuk jkf”k 69959531@&:i;s
➢
,e o’khZ; yht jkf”k 3497977@&:i;s
➢
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:19:45 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 12:03:06 PM)

(6 of 38)
[2026:RJ-JP:20300] [CW-5717/2025]
➢ lkbZV Iyku “kqYd 100@&:i;s
dqy tek ;ksX; jkf”k 73457608@&:i;s
2- f}rh; fd”r%&
utjkuk jkf”k 69959531@&:i;s
➢
3- r`rh; fd”r%&
➢ utjkuk jkf”k 69959531@&:i;s
4- prqFkZ fd”r %&
utjkuk jkf”k 69959532@&:i;s
➢

7. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner–trust, in
compliance with the terms of allotment, deposited the first
installment on 12.04.2023, amounting to Rs.7,34,57,608/- vide
challan No. 852643. Consequent thereto, the respondent–JDA
issued a possession letter along with the site plan on 27.04.2023,
thereby placing the petitioner in possession of the allotted land. It
was further submitted that, thereafter, the petitioner–trust
addressed representations/letters dated 23.05.2023 and
17.10.2023 to the respondent–JDA, inter alia requesting revision
of the payment schedule so as to permit payment of the
remaining installments over a period of three years instead of one
year. However, no decision or response was communicated by the
respondent authorities on the said representations/letters.
Subsequently, the petitioner–trust proceeded to deposit the
second installment on 16.07.2024, amounting to Rs.6,99,59,531/-
vide challan No. 931863; intimation in this regard was duly
furnished to the respondent–JDA. It was vehemently emphasized
that the said amount was accepted by the respondent without any
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:19:45 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 12:03:06 PM)

(7 of 38)
[2026:RJ-JP:20300] [CW-5717/2025]
demur or objection, thereby evidencing tacit approval of the
petitioner’s compliance with the terms of allotment.
8. It was further submitted that, subsequent to the deposit of
the second installment, the petitioner–trust submitted building
plans for the proposed hospital and medical education complex,
seeking requisite approvals from the respondent–JDA. Thereafter,
at a much later stage, vide communication dated 28.11.2024, the
respondent–JDA informed the petitioner–trust that the proposed
building height of 121.50 meters was not in conformity with the
NOC issued by the Airports Authority of India, and accordingly
directed submission of revised plans restricting the height to 90
meters. In compliance with the said direction, the petitioner–trust
promptly submitted revised building plans on 11.12.2024,
proposing a building height of 90 meters in accordance with the
stipulations contained in the NOC issued by the Airports Authority
of India.
9. At this juncture, it was ardently contended that the conduct
of the respondent–JDA clearly demonstrated acceptance and
affirmation of the second installment, as well as the ongoing
development process undertaken by the petitioner–trust. However,
without raising any objection to the actions undertaken by the
petitioner till that stage, the respondent–JDA, vide communication
dated 03.01.2025, abruptly informed the petitioner–trust that, in
view of the available aerial hydraulic ladder for firefighting being
limited to a height of 70 meters, the petitioner was required to
once again submit revised building plans in conformity with the
said constraint.
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:19:45 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 12:03:06 PM)

(8 of 38)
[2026:RJ-JP:20300] [CW-5717/2025]
10. It was further submitted that the respondent–JDA, vide
notice dated 21.01.2025, alleged that the second installment was
deposited with delay and that the third and fourth installments
were not yet paid. Thus vide said notice, a period of 15 days was
granted to the petitioner–trust to deposit the outstanding
amounts. It was apprised that the said notice was received by the
petitioner–trust only on 25.01.2025. Learned counsel submitted
that, in strict compliance with the aforesaid notice and well within
the stipulated period of 15 days from the date of receipt, the
petitioner–trust proceeded to deposit the entire outstanding
amount towards the third and fourth installments, aggregating to
Rs. 13,99,19,062/-, vide challan Nos. 959025, 960413, 961059,
and 961161. It was emphasized that, at every stage of such
deposits, due intimation was furnished to the respondent–JDA
through written communications, and no objection or protest was
ever raised by the respondent with respect to acceptance of the
said amounts.
11. Thereafter, vide communication dated 13.02.2025, the
respondent–JDA once again called upon the petitioner–trust to
submit revised building plans within a period of 15 days, failing
which the process of approval would stand closed. It was
contended that the conduct of the respondent clearly
demonstrated that the process of approval of building plans was
actively under consideration, and the respondent was proceeding
on the premise that the allotment subsisted and remained valid.
In such circumstances, it was urged that the subsequent action of
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:19:45 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 12:03:06 PM)

(9 of 38)
[2026:RJ-JP:20300] [CW-5717/2025]
the respondent–JDA in refunding the installment amounts is
clearly hit by the doctrine of estoppel.
12. Learned counsel further submitted that, upon deposit of the
entire consideration amount by 13.02.2025, the petitioner–trust
submitted revised building plans proposing a height of 70 meters
in compliance with the requirements communicated by the
respondent authorities. No further objections or deficiencies were
communicated thereafter, and in the absence of any adverse
response, it was reasonably inferred that the building plans were
in consonance with the applicable building bye-laws and stood
accepted by the respondent-JDA. Further, it was apprised that
subsequent to full payment of the consideration amount, the
petitioner–trust submitted an application dated 18.02.2025
(Application No. 209636 – marked as Annexure-23) seeking
issuance of the lease deed from the respondent–JDA, wherein the
tentative date for issuance of the lease deed was indicated as
07.04.2025. The petitioner–trust, acting bona fide, awaited
execution of the lease deed and, in the meantime, continued to
take steps towards development of the project for which the land
was allotted. In continuation thereof, the petitioner–trust
addressed a communication dated 04.03.2025 to the respondent–
JDA, inter alia stating that although an earlier request had been
made for revision of the payment schedule, the same stood
rendered infructuous in view of the notice dated 21.01.2025,
pursuant to which the entire outstanding amount was deposited.
Thus no irregularity or default could be attributed to the
petitioner–trust.
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:19:45 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 12:03:06 PM)

(10 of 38)
[2026:RJ-JP:20300] [CW-5717/2025]
13. However, to the utter shock and surprise of the petitioner–
trust, a communication dated 07.03.2025 (Annexure-25 – Order
impugned), sent through registered post and received on
17.03.2025 at the end of the petitioner, disclosed that respondent
No. 3 i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Zone 9, JDA had taken a
unilateral decision to refund the amounts deposited towards the
second, third, and fourth installments, for the reasons not known
to the petitioners. It was contended that the said decision was
taken sans affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner–
trust, in blatant violation of the principles of natural justice. It was
further submitted that, within the shortest span of time, as
possible, and even prior to receipt of the said communication, the
respondent–JDA on 11.03.2025, unilaterally refunded an amount
of Rs. 20,98,78,593/- to the bank account of the petitioner–trust,
without issuance of any prior notice, order, or intimation.
14. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the respondent–JDA, vide
communication dated 07.04.2025 (Annexure-26), directed the
petitioner–trust to submit further revised building plans
incorporating circulation levels for the upper and lower ground
floors. In compliance thereof, the petitioner–trust submitted
revised plans on 16.04.2025, which were duly received by the
respondent authorities. However, in a further arbitrary turn of
events, and to the utter shock of the petitioner–trust, the
respondent–JDA issued an order dated 08.04.2025 (Annexure-27)
cancelling the allotment of land, despite the petitioner having
complied with all requirements and deposited the entire
consideration amount, and despite the respondent’s own conduct
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:19:45 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 12:03:06 PM)

(11 of 38)
[2026:RJ-JP:20300] [CW-5717/2025]
indicating continuance of the allotment and processing of
approvals.
15. In support of the contentions made insofar, learned counsel
had placed reliance upon a catena of judgments, inter alia,
Welspun Speciality Solutions Limited (Formerly known as
Remi Metals Gujarat Ltd. Vs. Oil and Natural Gas
Corporation Ltd.: Civil Appeal Nos.2826-2827/2016 along
with other connected appeal, decided on 13.11.2021; M/s.
Hind Construction Contractors by its Sole Proprietor
Bhikam Chand Mulchand Jain (Dead) by LRs Vs. State of
Maharashtra: (1979) 2 SCC 70; Mcdermott International
Inc. Vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Ors.: (2006) 11 SCC 181:
Narayani Trexim Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.:
Writ Petition No.5619/2021, decided on 19.04.2023 .
16. In conclusion of the aforementioned, it was prayed that
directions be given to the respondents to restore the allotment of
land in favour of the petitioner–trust, accept back the amount as
returned, and to give effect to the allotment letter dated
22.03.2023, including execution of the lease deed in accordance
with law, and thus the instant petition is ought to be allowed. It
was also assured to the Court that, if the instant petition is
allowed the petitioners shall carry out every possible endeavor to
conclude the said construction and get the Hospital and Medical
Health Care Center operational, in order to serve the primary
object of the Trust.
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:19:45 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 12:03:06 PM)

(12 of 38)
[2026:RJ-JP:20300] [CW-5717/2025]
SUBMISSIONS MADE BY LEARNED COUNSEL
REPRESENTING THE RESPONDENTS :
17. In juxtaposition thereto, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondents had contended that the instant dispute
emanates from the petitioner–trust’s proposal to establish a
healthcare, skill development, and medical education complex,
which was initially recommended in the year 2015 and
subsequently approved by the Cabinet Empowered Committee in
the year 2021. Pursuant thereto, final approval was accorded by
the competent authority on 08.03.2023. Thus, acting strictly in
furtherance of the aforesaid decision, the respondent–JDA issued
an allotment-cum-demand letter/allotment letter in favour of the
petitioner–trust with respect to the property in question. It was
submitted that the said allotment constituted a statutory grant,
governed by the provisions of the Rules of 1974, particularly Rules
15 and 17, which regulate the allotment of non-residential land to
charitable institutions at concessional rates. It was emphasized
that the terms and conditions incorporated in the allotment letter
were mandatory, binding, and non-negotiable in nature. It was
further submitted that the allotment letter specifically provided for
the detailed bifurcation and calculation of the concessional
premium payable by the petitioner–trust. Learned counsel
contended that the subsequent cancellation of the allotment and
refund of the deposited amounts were necessitated on account of
the petitioner’s persistent defaults in adhering to the stipulated
payment schedule, as well as the substantial escalation in the
market value of the land in the intervening period. For the sake of
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:19:45 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 12:03:06 PM)

(13 of 38)
[2026:RJ-JP:20300] [CW-5717/2025]
handiness, the relevant Rules, as relied upon by the learned
counsel for the respondents are reproduced hereinbelow:
“ 15. Allotment and sale of non-residential land -
Land for non-residential purposes shall be allotted to
public and charitable institutions on terms and
conditions prescribed under these rules provided that
lands of commercial nature shall be disposed of by
public auction in the manner [as prescribed in Annexure
A] provided further that the lands reserved for cinema,
[Luxury hotels], [Film Studios and Amusement Parks],
[Hospital, Diagnostic Centre, Nursing Homes and
Tourism Unit], petrol pumps and for setting up godowns
by [XXX] persons having authorised agencies of
domestic gas allotted to them shall be disposed of in
accordance with the directions of the State Government
that may be issued from time to time :
[Provided that plots of land for consumer Co-operative
Stores duly certified to the registered with the Assistant
Registrar, Co-operative Societies of the concerned
District, shall be allotted in the commercial areas on the
reserve price of the scheme. The price shall be
recovered in four equal annual installments:
Provided further that the number and size of such plots
shall be determined by the Trust in consultation with
the Government.]
[Provided further also that the price for allotment of
land for gas godowns to be set up by War widows,
member of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and
handicapped persons shall be the reserve price
determined for land meant for commercial use in the
scheme and for other category of persons the price
shall be double the reserve price determined for land
meant for commercial use in the scheme].
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:19:45 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 12:03:06 PM)

(14 of 38)
[2026:RJ-JP:20300] [CW-5717/2025]
[Provided also that 30% of the land for shops and
constructed shops shall be reserved for the members of
the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes.]
16. XXXX
17. Allotment of Residential plots at fixed rates,
procedure, categories, priority, plot size, price,
recoveries, etc. — (1) Every person entitled for
allotment shall get himself registered with the Trust
concerned where by making any application in the form
prescribed by the Government obtainable from the
Trust concerned on payment of such registration fee as
may be fixed by the Trust from time to time.
(2) xxxx
(3) xxxx
(4) [Category of person, plots size and price]. —
The size of the plot and price to be charged from
various categories of people entitled for allotment
under these rules shall be in accordance with the
Schedule attached to these rules.
[(5) The cost of land shall be deposited by the allottee
within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of
intimation for depositing the amount :
Provided that the allottee may deposit the said amount
within the next 90 days from the day of expiry of said
period of thirty days along with an interest @ 15% per
annum. Interest shall be charged with effect from the
thirty first say from the of receipt of intimation for
depositing the amount, failing which the allotment of
land shall automatically stand cancelled :
Provided further that such allotment of land may be
regularised by withdrawing the automatic cancellation if
the allottee is prepared to pay the full amount of cost of
land plus penalty and interest at following rates :-
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:19:45 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 12:03:06 PM)

(15 of 38)
[2026:RJ-JP:20300] [CW-5717/2025]
S.
No
Period from allotment Rate of
interest on
remaining
amount
Penalty Authority for
regularisation
1 2 3 4 5
1. 121 days and upto 1 year [@9% per
annum]
5% of
remaining
amount
Chairman of the
Trust
2 more than 1 year and
upto 2 years
[@9% per
annum]
10% of the
remaining
amount
Trust (decided in
Trust meeting)
3. more than 2 years [@9% per
annum]
15% of the
remaining
amount
State
Government]

(6) xxxx”
18. It was argued that the land in question had been allotted to
the petitioner–trust at a highly concessional rate of Rs. 4,312.50
per square meter, whereas, by the time the amounts were
refunded, the market value of the land had increased manifold,
resulting in a potential and significant loss to the public exchequer.
It was contended that, if the allotment were to be revived, the
petitioner, despite having defaulted in timely payments would
unjustly benefit by acquiring land presently valued at
approximately Rs. 113 Crores for a consideration of about and
approx. Rs. 27 Crores, thereby causing grave prejudice to public
interest.
19. Additionally, it was submitted that as per Condition No. 29 of
the allotment letter, the petitioner–trust was obligated to deposit
the total premium in four equal quarterly installments within a
period of one year, without any interest liability. However, the
petitioner committed repeated defaults in complying with the said
schedule. Albeit the first installment, due in April 2023, was
deposited within time, the second installment, due in July 2023,
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:19:45 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 12:03:06 PM)

(16 of 38)
[2026:RJ-JP:20300] [CW-5717/2025]
was deposited after a delay of approximately 12 months, the third
installment, due in October 2023, was deposited with a delay of
about 15 months, and the fourth installment, due in March 2024,
was deposited after a delay of nearly 10 months. Therefore, in
view of such persistent and substantial delays, the petitioner had
clearly violated the essential terms and conditions of the
allotment. It was thus submitted that, in terms of Condition No.
17 of the allotment letter, such non-compliance rendered the
allotment liable to automatic cancellation, and therefore, the
action of the respondents is legal, justified, and in consonance
with the governing statutory framework. The relevant condition is
reproduced hereinbelow:
17.
^^ ;fn ekaxh xbZ jkf”k 30 fnol rd Hkh tek ugha djkbZ
tkrh gS rks blds vxys 30 fnu mijkUr jkf”k tek djkus gsrq
pkyku QkeZ ij funs”kd foÙk@lEcfU/kr mik;qDr ls vuqefr
izkIr dj C;kt lfgr jkf”k tek djkuh gksxhA fcuk vuqefr
izkIr fd;s lh/ks gh cSad esa tek djkbZ xbZ jkf”k ekU; ugha
gksxhA vkoaVu ds 60 fnu rd jkf”k tek ugha djkus ij
vkoaVu Lor% gh fujLr le>k tk;sxk rFkk nqckjk Hkwfe
fuLrkj.k lfefr gh bl ekeys esa iqu% vkoaVu ds ekeys esa
eSfjV vkWQ nh dsl ds vk/kkj ij fu.kZ; ysxh blds fy, laLFkk
dks fu/kkZfjr izfdz;k vuqlkj iqu% vkosnu djuk gksxkA^^
20. Learned counsel for the respondents, while advancing their
submissions in continuation, invited the attention of this Court to
the specific stipulations contained in Condition No. 17 of the
allotment letter, particularly Rules 1 and 2 appended thereto. It
was submitted that Rule 1 expressly provides that any amount
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:19:45 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 12:03:06 PM)

(17 of 38)
[2026:RJ-JP:20300] [CW-5717/2025]
deposited directly into the designated bank account without prior
permission of the competent authority shall not be treated as a
valid payment; and that Rule 2 stipulates that in the event the due
installment is not deposited within a period of 60 days from the
prescribed due date, the allotment shall be deemed to have been
automatically cancelled, without necessitating any further act,
order, or communication on the part of the respondent authority.
Further, learned counsel contended that the second installment,
which fell due in July 2023, was not deposited within the
stipulated period of 60 days, and consequently, the allotment
stood automatically cancelled by operation of law on 22.09.2023.
Hence, no separate notice, hearing, or formal order of cancellation
was required in view of the self-operative nature of the conditions
governing the allotment.
21. It was additionally submitted that the subsequent conduct of
the petitioner–trust clearly reveals its ulterior motives and lack of
bona fides . Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner’s
own communication dated 05.11.2024 on the letter head of the
petitioner-trust revealed an intention to sub-lease the allotted land
to a private corporate entity, which, is in clear contravention of the
object and purpose underlying allotment of land at concessional
rates to charitable institutions, is violative of the doctrine of public
trust and in contravention of Condition No.1 of the allotment
letter. At this juncture, attention of the Court was drawn to
Condition No. 1 of the allotment letter, which categorically
prohibits sub-leasing of the allotted land, so as to prevent
profiteering from land allotted at concessional rates under a
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:19:45 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 12:03:06 PM)

(18 of 38)
[2026:RJ-JP:20300] [CW-5717/2025]
welfare-oriented scheme. However, despite such express
prohibition, the petitioner–trust, vide its communication dated
05.11.2024 addressed to the Cabinet Minister, sought relaxation of
the said condition with a view to sub-lease the land to a private
corporate entity for purposes of medical tourism. It was submitted
that, in the said communication, the petitioner–trust candidly
admitted its financial incapacity to independently undertake the
proposed project, thereby exposing its intent to commercially
exploit the subsidized land, rather than to utilize the same for
bona fide charitable purposes. According to the respondents, such
conduct is wholly inconsistent with the object of allotment and
militates against the doctrine of public trust.
22. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent–JDA
has acted strictly in accordance with law and with due
transparency, as the installments deposited by the petitioner
beyond the permissible period were not legally valid in view of the
conditions of allotment, and therefore, the respondent rightly
proceeded to return the said amounts. It was also submitted that,
notwithstanding the automatic cancellation, the respondent issued
a show-cause notice dated 21.01.2025, followed by a formal order
dated 07.03.2025 directing refund of the deposited amounts, and
thereafter, the entire sum was duly refunded to the petitioner–
trust. Therefore, the action impugned cannot be termed as illegal
an arbitrary, rather the same was in strict conformity with the
terms of allotment and the governing statutory framework.
23. It was further apprised to this Court that, on 11.04.2025,
i.e., prior to the grant of any interim protection in the present
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:19:45 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 12:03:06 PM)

(19 of 38)
[2026:RJ-JP:20300] [CW-5717/2025]
petition, the respondent–JDA authorities had already resumed
physical possession of the subject land. In this regard, reliance
was placed upon the official possession report on record, wherein
a panchnama dated 11.04.2025 was duly prepared and executed
jointly by the Executive Engineer, Zone–9, the Enforcement
Officer, and the concerned revenue officials, evidencing
resumption of possession by the respondent authorities. However,
the said contention as qua the possession of the land in question
being with JDA was refuted by the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner, and it was submitted that the possession
is with the petitioner only.
24. In summation of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel
for the respondents contended that any interference by this Court,
and particularly any direction to restore the allotment, would
result in grave and irreparable loss to the public exchequer. It was
urged that the petitioner–trust seeks to unjustly enrich itself by
securing valuable public land at highly concessional rates, despite
having defaulted in complying with the essential conditions of
allotment, and further, with an apparent intent to sub-lease the
same for commercial gain. It was, therefore, prayed that the
present petition, being devoid of merit and contrary to public
interest, deserves to be dismissed.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS :
25. Upon considering the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel, having scrutinized the material on record in extenso , and
having evaluated the factual matrix and legal tenets requisite for a
final determination are delineated in the findings ad-infra;
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:19:45 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 12:03:06 PM)

(20 of 38)
[2026:RJ-JP:20300] [CW-5717/2025]
however, prior to embarking upon an appraisal of the rival
contentions and the substantive issues involved, this court deems
it apposite to enunciate the uncontroverted factual matrix and the
non-contentious particulars appertaining to the instant lis :
25.1 That the petitioner No. 1, Puranmal Phoola Devi
Memorial Trust, is a duly registered trust engaged in the field of
medical education since the year 1980, and petitioner No. 2 is its
Managing Trustee. Thus, petitioner no.1 works on philanthropic
basis, whose primary beneficiary is the public at large. It is also
undisputed that in the matter at hand the petitioner no.1 is prima
facie acting as under the Public Private Partnership model.
25.2 That with the objective of establishing a hospital and
medical education complex, the petitioner–trust approached the
State Government in the year 2015 seeking allotment of land.
Pursuant thereto, the Land and Building Disposal Committee, in its
th
118 meeting dated 30.07.2015, recommended allotment of land
at concessional rates, which was subsequently approved by the
Cabinet Empowered Committee in its meeting dated 29.09.2021.
25.3 That after a considerable lapse of time, the State
Government, in the year 2023, directed the JDA to proceed with
the allotment. In compliance thereof, JDA issued an allotment
letter dated 22.03.2023 in favour of the petitioner–trust for land
admeasuring 64,890 sq. meters situated at Village Jirota.
25.4 That the total premium amount of Rs. 27,98,38,125/-
was payable in four installments. The petitioner deposited the first
installment on 12.04.2023, whereafter possession of the land was
handed over on 27.04.2023.
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:19:45 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 12:03:06 PM)

(21 of 38)
[2026:RJ-JP:20300] [CW-5717/2025]
25.5 That thereafter, the petitioner sought revision of the
payment schedule, which remained undecided. However, with a
delay the petitioner deposited the second installment on
16.07.2024, which was accepted by JDA without objection.
Subsequently, the petitioner submitted building plans and
continued to engage with the respondent authorities for approvals.
Various communications were exchanged regarding building height
and technical compliances, pursuant to which revised plans were
submitted from time to time.
25.6 That on 21.01.2025, JDA issued a notice alleging delay
in payment of installments and granted 15 days’ time to deposit
the remaining amount. The petitioner received the said notice on
25.01.2025 and, within the stipulated period, deposited the entire
outstanding amount towards the third and fourth installments by
13.02.2025, which was duly intimated to JDA and accepted
without objection. The petitioner thereafter applied for execution
of lease deed on 18.02.2025. However, on 08.04.2025, the
allotment was canceled.
25.7 That in March 2025, the respondent authorities, sans
prior notice or opportunity of hearing, unilaterally refunded the
amounts deposited towards the second, third, and fourth
installments. The petitioner received intimation of such decision
subsequently; and despite this, JDA continued to seek revised
building plans even in April 2025.
26. Having evaluated the submissions proffered by the learned
counsel regarding the factual matrix enumerated hereinabove, and
having perused the material on record alongside the settled
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:19:45 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 12:03:06 PM)

(22 of 38)
[2026:RJ-JP:20300] [CW-5717/2025]
position of law, this court deems it fit to render its findings on the
settled issues ad-infra:
Issue No. 1: Whether the allotment stood automatically cancelled
under Condition No. 17, and as to whether the respondents were
justified in treating the delay in deposit beyond 60 days as
automatic cancellation of allotment, despite subsequent
acceptance of payments and continued conduct recognizing the
subsistence of the allotment?
27. This Court has carefully considered the factual matrix in
juxtaposition with the governing condition reproduced
hereinabove, which stipulates that in the event the demanded
amount is not deposited within the stipulated period, a further
grace period may be availed with prior approval and payment of
interest, failing which upon lapse of 60 days the allotment shall be
deemed to be automatically cancelled and the matter relegated for
fresh consideration. The language employed in the condition
appears peremptory however, procedural and admits of discretion
of the authority concerned, particularly by use of expressions such
as “ पुनः आवंटन ” . However, it is a settled principle of law that
contractual stipulations, howsoever stringent in text, must be
interpreted not in isolation but in the backdrop of the conduct of
parties and the overarching requirement of fairness in State
action. It is also opined that if at the first violation of the condition
of deposition of amount, if no stern action is taken, and
subsequent payments are accepted, the respondents cannot
revert the same.
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:19:45 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 12:03:06 PM)

(23 of 38)
[2026:RJ-JP:20300] [CW-5717/2025]
28. The respondents have placed heavy reliance upon Condition
No. 17 of the allotment letter, to contend that the allotment stood
automatically cancelled upon failure to deposit the installment
within 60 days of the due date. At first blush, such a clause
appears self-operative; however, the enforceability of such a
clause must be tested not merely on its textual existence, but on
its application in the factual matrix and its compatibility with
constitutional principles governing State action. In the present
case, even assuming that the second installment was not
deposited within 60 days of the due date (July 2023), the
subsequent conduct of the respondent–JDA becomes
determinative. The record reveals that the second installment was
accepted in July 2024 without any reservation by the respondents;
that no communication was issued treating the allotment as
cancelled at that stage; that the respondent continued to process
building plans and issued technical communications even
thereafter. Nonetheless, a fresh notice dated 21.01.2025 was
issued, calling upon the petitioner to deposit the remaining
installments, thereby implicitly acknowledging subsistence of
allotment, and thus barring the actions of the respondents by the
doctrine of estoppel. This Court is of a stern opinion that such
conduct of the respondents is wholly inconsistent with the plea
that the allotment had already stood automatically cancelled in
September 2023, in view of the conditions of the allotment letter
dated 22.03.2023.
29. Further, it is a settled principle that a party may waive a
contractual stipulation expressly or by conduct. The consistent
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:19:45 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 12:03:06 PM)

(24 of 38)
[2026:RJ-JP:20300] [CW-5717/2025]
acceptance of delayed payments without protest constitutes a
clear waiver of strict compliance, such acceptance of payments
beyond the prescribed period, without insisting upon prior
approval as contemplated in the condition, clearly dilutes the
rigour of the clause. The respondents, by their own conduct,
treated the timeline as directory rather than mandatory. Further,
the condition itself contemplates grant of permission by the
competent authority for delayed payment within the extended
period. This inherently indicates that the stipulation is not absolute
but subject to administrative discretion. When such discretion is
exercised—expressly or impliedly through conduct—it cannot
thereafter be retrospectively nullified to the detriment of the
allottee. Thus, Condition No. 17, even if initially attracted, stood
waived by the respondent’s own conduct, and cannot be invoked
belatedly to the prejudice of the petitioner.
Issue No. 2: Whether the impugned action violates principles of
natural justice?
30. The next and more fundamental issue pertains to whether
the cancellation of allotment and refund of installments, without
affording any opportunity of hearing, is sustainable. It is trite that
any action of the State having civil consequences must conform to
principles of natural justice. In the present case, the consequences
are severe, as cancellation of allotment of valuable land,
disruption of an ongoing project involving medical education
infrastructure, financial and reputational prejudice to the
petitioner, and despite such consequences, the respondents did
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:19:45 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 12:03:06 PM)

(25 of 38)
[2026:RJ-JP:20300] [CW-5717/2025]
not issue any show cause notice prior to cancellation, did not
grant any opportunity of personal hearing, and directly effected
refund even prior to communicating the decision. It is settled
principle as by way of a catena of judgments that the procedure
adopted by the State must be ‘right, just and fair’ and not
arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive.
31. In the ratio encapsulated in Erusian Equipment &
Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, (1975) 1 SCC 70, it
was held that even administrative decisions affecting rights must
comply with natural justice. In the matter at hand, the
respondents have attempted to justify their action on the ground
of ‘automatic cancellation’. However, such a plea cannot override
constitutional guarantees, and the principles of natural justice and
doctrine of audi alteram partem. Even where the allotment letter
provides for automatic consequences, State authorities are not
absolved of the obligation to act fairly. Accordingly, the complete
absence of pre-decisional hearing renders the impugned action
void ab initio.
Issue No. 3: Whether doctrine of legitimate expectation and
estoppel applies?
32. The facts of the present case reveal a consistent pattern of
conduct on the part of the respondent–JDA which induced a
reasonable belief in the petitioner that the allotment subsisted and
that compliance, albeit delayed, was being accepted, inter alia,
other aspects, as the acceptance of second installment without
objection, deposition by the petitioner-trust and acceptance of
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:19:45 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 12:03:06 PM)

(26 of 38)
[2026:RJ-JP:20300] [CW-5717/2025]
third and fourth installments by the respondents, within time
stipulated by notice dated 21.01.2025; continuous engagement
regarding building plan approvals; directions issued in the month
of April 2025 for submission of revised plans, this conduct of
respondent-JDA is not merely passive, but is affirmative and
participatory, thereby reinforcing the petitioner’s expectation. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Hindustan
Development Corporation: (1993) 3 SCC 499, recognized that
legitimate expectation arises from consistent past practice or
conduct of the State. Further, in the dictum enunciated in Motilal
Padampat Sugar Mills v. State of UP: (1979) 2 SCC 409 , it
was held that the State is bound by the doctrine of promissory
estoppel where a party has acted upon a representation.
33. In the present case, the petitioner not only altered its
position but also deposited substantial amounts, secured multiple
statutory approvals over a substantial period, initiated project
development. Thus this Court is of a considerate opinion that the
respondents, having treated the allotment as subsisting, cannot
turn around at a belated stage and assert that the said allotment
stood cancelled earlier.
Issue No. 4: Whether the action of the respondents is justified on
grounds of public exchequer and alleged ulterior motive?
34. The respondents have sought to justify their action by
invoking public interest, contending that revival of allotment would
result in financial loss to the State and that the petitioner intended
to sub-lease the land, as permission was sought to remove the
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:19:45 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 12:03:06 PM)

(27 of 38)
[2026:RJ-JP:20300] [CW-5717/2025]
Condition No. 1 of the allotment letter. This Court is of the view
that such arguments, though appealing in equity, cannot sustain
an otherwise illegal action. The rationale qua this opinion is based
on the conclusions, enumerated ad infra:
34.1 That the allotment at concessional rates was not an
inadvertent act, rather it was the result of the recommendation by
the Land and Building Disposal Committee (in the year 2015),
approval by Cabinet Empowered Committee (in the year 2021),
and the final sanction by the competent authority (in the year
2023). Thus, the concessional pricing is a matter of State policy,
not a subsequent anomaly.
34.2 That the alleged escalation in market value cannot be a
ground to rescind a concluded transaction., and granting
permission to such reasoning would introduce uncertainty and
arbitrariness in State dealings.
34.3 That the allegation of sub-leasing is, at best,
prospective and conditional, qua which only permission was
sought, and no actual violation is therefore established; as the
said permission was never accepted or denied by the respondents.
Thence, seeking strength from the principle of emo potest mutare
consilium suum in alterius injuriam, meaning that no one can
change their position to the detriment of another, this Court is of a
view that the respondents are barred by the doctrine of estoppel,
and that public interest cannot be invoked as a cloak to justify
arbitrary administrative action.
Issue No. 5: Whether time was essence of the present contract?
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:19:45 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 12:03:06 PM)

(28 of 38)
[2026:RJ-JP:20300] [CW-5717/2025]
35. At the outset, it is a settled principle of contract law that, in
transactions pertaining to immovable property, time is ordinarily
not of the essence, unless specifically stipulated or necessarily
implied from the terms and surrounding circumstances. This
principle has been consistently affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Chand Rani v. Kamal Rani, (1993) 1 SCC 519 , and
later reiterated in Saradamani Kandappan v. S. Rajalakshmi,
(2011) 12 SCC 18 , wherein it was held that though modern
commercial realities may demand stricter adherence to timelines,
the intention to treat time as the essence must be explicit and
unequivocal. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the
present case, this Court finds that no such intention can be
discerned.
35.1 That the allotment in question pertains to a large parcel
of land admeasuring 64,890 sq. meters allotted for institutional
purposes, namely establishment of a hospital and medical college.
Such allotments, by their very nature, involve phased compliance,
regulatory approvals, and long periods. Therefore, they do not
partake the character of strict commercial contracts where rigid
timelines are fundamental.
35.2 That the conduct of the respondent–JDA clearly
militates against the plea that time was of the essence. The
petitioner deposited the first installment in April 2023 and was
handed over possession shortly thereafter, however, in matters of
akin nature, the possession qua the property is only handed over,
after clearance of the amount in toto; and herein a distinguishable
approach is adopted by the State Government for the best known
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:19:45 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 12:03:06 PM)

(29 of 38)
[2026:RJ-JP:20300] [CW-5717/2025]
welfare-based reasons. Even though there was delay in
subsequent installments, the second installment deposited on
16.07.2024 was accepted without protest. More significantly, upon
issuance of notice dated 21.01.2025, the petitioner deposited the
entire outstanding amount within the stipulated extended period,
i.e., by 13.02.2025, and the same was duly accepted by the
respondents. Such acceptance of delayed payments without
demur constitutes a clear waiver of strict compliance with
timelines. The doctrine embodied in qui approbat non reprobat
(one who approbates cannot reprobate) squarely applies, as
having accepted the delayed payments, the respondents cannot
subsequently turn around and penalize the petitioner for the very
delay which stood condoned.
35.3 That even after the alleged default, the respondents
continued to engage with the petitioner by seeking revised
building plans and processing the matter in April 2025. This
conduct reinforces the inference that the contractual relationship
was subsisting and that timelines were treated as flexible rather
than fundamental.
35.3.1 In this regard, the law laid down and the reliance
placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner upon the ratio
encapsulated in Hind Construction Contractors (supra) , is
apposite, wherein it was held that acceptance of delayed
performance and continued dealings between the parties are
strong indicators that time was not intended to be of the essence.
The relevant extract from Hind Construction Contractors
(supra) , is reproduced hereinbelow:
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:19:45 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 12:03:06 PM)

(30 of 38)
[2026:RJ-JP:20300] [CW-5717/2025]
“7. The first question that arises for our consideration,
therefore, is whether time was of the essence of the
contract that was executed between the parties on July
12, 1955 (Ex. 34). It cannot be disputed that
question whether or not time was of the essence
of the contract would essentially be a question of
the intention of the parties to be gathered from
the terms of the contract. The contract in the instant
case is for the construction of an aqueduct across the
Alandi River at Mile No. 2 of the Nasik Left Bank Canal
and unquestionably 12 months' period commencing
from the date of the commencement of the work had
been specified within which the construction had to be
completed by the appellant-plaintiff. Indisputably, in
the work order dated July 2, 1955 the Executive
Engineer had directed the appellant-plaintiff to
commence the work by July 5, 1955 intimating in clear
terms that the stipulated date for starting the work
would be reckoned from July 5, 1955. Both the trial
court as well as the High Court have found that
mentioning of July 5, 1955 as the date for starting the
work was not nominal but was real date intended to be
acted upon by the parties. It is, therefore, clear that 12
months' period mentioned for the completion of the
work was to expire on July 4, 1956. The question is
whether this period of 12 months so specified in
the contract was of the essence of the contract or
not ? On the one hand, counsel for the appellant-
plaintiff contended that the contract being
analogous to a building contract the period of 12
months would not ordinarily be of the essence of
the contract as the subject-matter there of was
not such as to make completion to time essential,
that an agreement to complete it within
reasonable time would be implied and that
reasonable time for completion would be allowed.
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:19:45 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 12:03:06 PM)

(31 of 38)
[2026:RJ-JP:20300] [CW-5717/2025]
On the other hand counsel for the respondent-
defendant contended that time had been expressly
made of the essence of the contract and in that behalf
reliance was placed upon Clause (2) of the "Conditions
of Contract" where not only time was stated to be of
the essence of the contract on the part of the
contractor but even for completion of proportionate
works specific periods had been specified and,
therefore, the appellant-plaintiff's failure to complete
the work within the stipulated period entitled the
respondent-defendant to rescind it.
In the latest 4th edn. of Halsbury's Laws of England in
regard to building and engineering contracts the
statement of law is to be found in Vol. 4, Para 1179,
which runs thus:
1179. Where time is of the essence of the
contract. The expression time is of the
essence means that a breach of the
condition as to the time for performance
will entitle the innocent party to consider
the breach as a repudiation of the contract.
Exceptionally, the completion of the work by a
specified date may be a condition precedent to
the contractor's right to claim payment. T he
parties may expressly provide that time is
of the essence of the contract and where
there is power to determine the contract on
a failure to complete by the specified date,
the stipulation as to time will be
fundamental. Other provisions of the contract
may, on the construction of the contract, exclude
an inference that the completion of the works by
a particular date is fundamental, time is not of
the essence where a sum is payable for each
week that the work remains incomplete after the
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:19:45 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 12:03:06 PM)

(32 of 38)
[2026:RJ-JP:20300] [CW-5717/2025]
date fixed, nor where the parties contemplate a
postponement of completion.
Where time has not been made of the essence of
the contract or, by reason of waiver, the time
fixed has ceased to be applicable, the employer
may by notice fix a reasonable time for the
completion of the work and dismiss the
contractor on a failure to complete by the date
so fixed.
(Emphasis supplied)
35.4 That there is nothing on record to indicate that the
allotment letter expressly stipulated that non-payment within the
prescribed time would automatically result in cancellation without
recourse to extension or condonation and that the respondents at
a much belated stage on 21.01.2025 issued a notice granting
fifteen days upper limit for deposition of the due amount, negates
the very clause of ‘automatic revocation of the contract/allotment’.
In the absence of such a forfeiture clause of a stringent nature,
the Court cannot infer that time was intended to be the essence of
the contract.
35.6 That the respondents’ own action of unilaterally
refunding the installments, despite having accepted them earlier,
is indicative of arbitrariness rather than contractual enforcement.
The petitioner, having complied within the extended time and
having been led to believe that the contract subsisted, cannot be
prejudiced by subsequent unilateral reversal.
36. In totality, the cumulative effect of the nature of the
transaction, absence of explicit stipulation, acceptance of delayed
payments, and continued post-default engagement, leads to an
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:19:45 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 12:03:06 PM)

(33 of 38)
[2026:RJ-JP:20300] [CW-5717/2025]
irresistible conclusion that time was not the essence of the
contract in the present case.
37. Thus, now the germane question arises that whether the
petitioner is entitled to restoration of allotment, or otherwise. For
which this Court in view of the findings noted addressing the
issues framed, is of a stance that the action of the respondents is
vitiated by violation of natural justice; the conduct of the
respondents attracts estoppel; and that the justification on
grounds of public exchequer is unsustainable. Contrarily, the
petitioner has deposited the entire consideration; timely complied
with directions issued; acted in furtherance of the project in good
faith; and even took a loan from the Bank as stated by the learned
counsel appearing for and by the petitioner, for smooth conclusion
of the project at hand. Thus, the balance of equity, legality, and
justice tilts decisively in favour of the petitioner, especially under
the circumstances where time was nowhere the essence of the
contract.
CONCLUSION :
38. In culmination of the issues addressed hereinabove, this
Court finds that the impugned action of the respondents is vitiated
both in law and on facts. The sequence of events clearly
demonstrates that the petitioner–trust, after being allotted a
substantial parcel of land for institutional purposes, had not only
deposited the first installment within time but was also handed
over possession of the land on 27.04.2023. Thereafter, despite
certain delays, the second installment deposited on 16.07.2024
was accepted by the respondents without objection, and even
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:19:45 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 12:03:06 PM)

(34 of 38)
[2026:RJ-JP:20300] [CW-5717/2025]
upon issuance of notice dated 21.01.2025, the petitioner complied
within the extended period by depositing the entire remaining
amount by 13.02.2025. Significantly, such payments were not
only received but retained by the respondents, and the petitioner
was permitted to proceed further by submitting building plans,
which continued to be examined even in April 2025. This
consistent course of conduct unmistakably reflects that the
contractual relationship between the parties subsisted and that
any delay stood condoned. However, in stark contradiction to their
own conduct, the respondents, without affording any prior notice
or opportunity of hearing, unilaterally refunded the installments
and proceeded to cancel the allotment on 08.04.2025, followed by
resumption of possession on 11.04.2025. Such action, taken
abruptly and without adherence to principles of natural justice,
strikes at the very root of fairness in administrative decision-
making.
39. The facts, leave no manner of doubt that the petitioner was
led to believe, through the actions of the respondents, that the
allotment remained valid and operative. The petitioner altered its
position by making substantial financial deposits and pursuing
statutory compliance. In such circumstances, the respondents
cannot be permitted to defeat the legitimate expectations so
created. The doctrine of legitimate expectation, coupled with a
view that the respondents, having approbated the contract by
accepting performance, are estopped from reprobating it
thereafter. The doctrine of fairness in State action demands
consistency, transparency, and adherence to natural justice, all of
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:19:45 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 12:03:06 PM)

(35 of 38)
[2026:RJ-JP:20300] [CW-5717/2025]
which stand breached in the present case; thus dis-entitling the
respondents from taking inconsistent stands to the prejudice of
the petitioner.
40. Further, the absence of any strict forfeiture clause and the
acceptance of delayed payments negate the contention that time
was the essence of the contract. The respondents, having waived
strict compliance, could not have resorted to the extreme measure
of cancellation without first affording a reasonable opportunity to
the petitioner to explain or rectify any alleged default. Thus,
viewed holistically, the impugned cancellation order is not only
arbitrary but also disproportionate to the alleged breach, if any. It
fails the test of reasonableness and cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, this Court holds that the petitioner has made out a
clear case for interference. The writ petition deserves to be
allowed, the impugned cancellation is liable to be quashed, and
the petitioner is entitled to restoration of allotment with all
consequential benefits.
DIRECTIONS :
41. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed in terms of the
prayers asked for, with the following directions:
41.1 The impugned actions of refund of installments and
cancellation of allotment are arbitrary and illegal, thus the
impugned letter/order(s) dated 07.03.2025 and 08.04.2025 are
hereby quashed and set aside.
41.2 Taking note of the fact that the petitioner had duly
attained all the NOCs from the departments concerned (inter alia,
NOC dated 06.10.2022 issued by the Medical and Health
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:19:45 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 12:03:06 PM)

(36 of 38)
[2026:RJ-JP:20300] [CW-5717/2025]
Department, Government of Rajasthan; NOC dated 03.02.2023
issued by the Department of Medical Education, Government of
Rajasthan, followed by another NOC dated 20.02.2023 from the
Department of AYUSH, Government of Rajasthan; NOC from the
Airports Authority of India, dated 03.09.2024,) time-to-time, has
submitted building plans as per the guidelines of the respondents,
as and when asked for, and has unequivocally established its
bonafides, the allotment of land vide allotment letter dated
22.03.2023 is restored in favour of the petitioner–trust.
41.3 The respondents shall treat all payments made by the
petitioner as valid and subsisting compliance. Thus, the
respondents are hereby directed to accept the amount of Rs.
20,98,78,593.00/- (Rs. Twenty Crore ninety-eight lakh seventy-
eight thousand five hundred ninety-three rupees and zero paise
only) i.e. the second, third and fourth installments from the
petitioner-trust, and proceed further for development of Hospital
and Medical Education Complex in terms of the conditions of the
allotment letter.
41.3.1 Further, in order to maintain parity and in consonance
with the objective of Public Private Partnership innovative, the
petitioner is directed to deposit the amount in question [Rs.
20,98,78,593.00/- (Rs. Twenty Crore ninety-eight lakh seventy-
eight thousand five hundred ninety-three rupees and zero paise
only)], in favor of the respondent concerned, along with an
interest as enumerated in the guidelines by Reserve Bank of India,
read with Section 30(7) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 (for referral and explicative purposes 6% per annum), of the
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:19:45 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 12:03:06 PM)

(37 of 38)
[2026:RJ-JP:20300] [CW-5717/2025]
period as tabulated herein below, within an upper limit period of
four weeks, from the date of pronouncement of this judgment:
Due Date of
payment
Date of
deposition of
payment
Interest applicable on the
deprived amount
22.07.2023 16.07.2024 @6% per annum on the amount
of second installment
22.10.2023 28.01.2025 @6% per annum
on the amount of third
installment
22.03.2024 07.02.2025 @6% per annum on the amount
of fourth installment
The date i.e.
17.03.2025, on
which the
petitioner was
in receipt of the
impugned letter
(07.03.2025).
Date of
deposition of
the said
amount to the
respondents.
@6% per annum on the amount
refunded by the respondents to
the petitioner. i.e. amount of the
second + third + fourth
installments
41.4 The respondents are directed to execute the lease deed
in favour of the petitioner Trust within a period of six weeks, from
the date of pronouncement of this judgment; and further process
the building plans submitted by the petitioners and pass
appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law pronto.
42. It is also directed that the petitioners shall strictly adhere to
all terms and conditions of allotment, and any violation, including
impermissible sub-leasing, shall invite action, in accordance with
law. As the learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the
petitioners had contended that the petitioner is ready and willing
to complete the construction and infrastructure development, and
thereafter promptly commence rendering service qua the Hospital
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:19:45 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 12:03:06 PM)

(38 of 38)
[2026:RJ-JP:20300] [CW-5717/2025]
and Medical Education Complex, within a period of two years; it is
expected and hereby directed that the same be complied within
the period as assured i.e. two years. It is expected from the
respondents that they shall render due cooperation and aid in
utmost lawful manner, qua grant of NOCs, as and when required,
by the respective departments/authorities.
43. It is cautiously clarified that this judgment shall not preclude
the respondents from enforcing lawful conditions prospectively,
but not in a manner inconsistent with the findings recorded herein.
44. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand
disposed.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
Preeti Asopa
(Uploaded on 26/05/2026 at 11:19:45 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 12:03:06 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)