In Brief
In this long-running dispute over a Mumbai housing project land auction, the Supreme Court held that government land settlement in land-scarce cities must be by public auction, not private negotiation. Although the Appellant's provisional bid was highest and initially accepted, its wrongful cancellation and the attempted settlement with a non-bidder (Respondent) violated public law principles. The Court applied evidence law presumptions favouring proper government communications. However, because the land's permissible use changed from commercial to residential, thirteen years had elapsed, and property value had increased dramatically, a fresh tender was mandatory. Both appeals were dismissed, but the Appellant was awarded 8% interest on its earnest money deposit.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.