Unauthorized proposal for land allotment by incompetent officer creates no vested right for lease execution.

The petitioner claimed to reside in a temporary construction on land in Khasra No. 60, Jabalpur, since 1990

Based on a notice from an Executive Engineer of the Jabalpur Development Authority (JDA) dated 17.09.2003, the petitioner deposited ₹4,40,253 for land allotment

The JDA contended that the Executive Engineer acted without authority and in a personal capacity, leading to his termination

Furthermore, the Chairman of JDA cancelled the proposal on 06.12.2003 because the land plan was disapproved by the Town Country Planning department

The petitioner was notified of this cancellation on 30.12.2003 and was asked to collect a refund, a fact allegedly suppressed in the petition

1. Whether a proposal for allotment issued by an unauthorized official creates a vested right in the petitioner to compel the execution of a lease deed.

2. Whether the Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a case of suppressed material facts and cancelled administrative proposals.

The court applied the principles governing Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the issuance of writs of mandamus

the doctrine that an administrative proposal issued without jurisdiction or by an official lacking authority does not create a vested legal right

the principle of "uberrima fides" (utmost good faith) in writ jurisdiction, implying that suppression of material facts—such as the receipt of cancellation notices—disentitles a petitioner to equitable relief

The court found that the communication dated 17.09.2003 was merely a proposal and not a concluded contract

It observed that the Executive Engineer issued the letter without any legal authority, rendering the basis of the petitioner’s claim void

The court noted that the JDA had already cancelled the proposal in 2003 and the petitioner was well aware of this, as evidenced by his own representation dated 15.01.2004 acknowledging the cancellation letter

Since the petitioner failed to prove any statutory rule or circular that empowered the Executive Engineer to issue such an allotment or that established a vested right to the property, the court determined there was no legal obligation for the JDA to execute the deed

The court found the petition devoid of merit and dismissed it, affirming that the JDA had rightly directed the petitioner to take back his deposited money