Mere application or oral assurance without formal allotment order confers no legal right over government property.

The petitioner, an educated individual running a computer training institute, applied for the allotment of Shop No. PB-04 at Valmiki Nagar on 01.08.2011.

He alleged that the Superintending Engineer (Respondent No. 4) gave him oral assurance of allotment, leading him to renovate the dilapidated shop and obtain an electricity connection in 2013.

However, the respondents never issued a formal allotment order and subsequently provisionally allotted the shop to Respondent No. 7 on 02.12.2015.

The authorities treated the petitioner's occupancy as unauthorized, demanding penal rent of ₹1,17,000 (at ₹2,250/month) and initiating criminal proceedings (Valmikinagar P.S. Case No. 25 of 2016) for illegal occupation.

The petitioner challenged the allotment to Respondent No. 7 and the demand for penal rent via this writ petition.

1. Whether the petitioner acquired a legal or vested right to the allotment of the government shop based on an application and alleged oral assurances.

2. Whether the respondents' action in allotting the shop to Respondent No. 7 and charging penal rent from the petitioner was arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Government property can only be settled through valid orders issued by competent authorities following prescribed departmental procedures.

The court relied on the principle that "oral assurances" by officials do not create enforceable legal rights or Estoppel against the State in matters of public property allotment.

The State has the right to impose "penal rent" on unauthorized occupants of public premises as a lawful departmental action.

The Court observed that the petitioner failed to produce any documentary evidence of a formal allotment order issued by a competent authority.

It dismissed the petitioner's reliance on oral assurances from the Superintending Engineer, stating that such claims cannot confer an enforceable right over government property.

Regarding the electricity connection and renovations, the Court agreed with the respondents that these were unauthorized acts that did not finalize a legal tenancy.

The Court found that since the petitioner was an unauthorized occupant, the State was justified in demanding penal rent rather than the subsidized rate of ₹55/month paid by authorized allottees.

There was no evidence of mala fides or procedural illegality in the provisional allotment to Respondent No. 7 that would warrant judicial interference.

The writ petition was dismissed, and the orders directing the petitioner to vacate and pay penal rent were upheld; and all interlocutory applications were disposed of.