Odisha Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. v. Pitabasa Mishra & Ors.
Background
M/s Sai Sankar Associates had been an unauthorized occupant of an industrial plot in Rourkela since 1996 and repeatedly sought regularization of its occupation. After a High Court direction to decide the representations, the Corporation's Board regularized the plot in its favour in 2008 upon payment of a concessional amount. Other plot-holders in the area (Respondent Nos. 1-6) challenged this regularization before the Orissa High Court, which set aside the allotment on the ground that no public auction had been held and the price charged was inadequate. The Corporation and the allottee appealed to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that public auction is not a constitutional mandate for every alienation of public/natural resources: the Court can only strike down a method of allotment if it is shown to violate the fairness requirement of Article 14, which was not established here. It found the Corporation's 2004 regularization policy (which fixed price based on prevailing auction rates for comparable land) was validly applied, and that the amount charged to the allottee was consistent with that policy and with amounts charged to similarly situated persons. It further held that a later 2008 policy restricting regularization did not apply retrospectively to bar a regularization process that had already been triggered by a pending High Court direction dating to 1996-2008. Accordingly, the High Court's judgment was set aside and the appeals were allowed.
Lesson Learnt
Public auction is not the only constitutionally valid method for the government to allot or regularize public land: a policy-based allotment is valid as long as it doesn't violate Article 14's fairness standard, and a subsequent policy change cannot retroactively undo regularization rights that had already accrued under an earlier, applicable policy.