Clarifying Entitlement to Offer Alternate Land in LPG Distributorship Applications

Introduction

In the case of Jagwant Kaur v. Union of India (2025 INSC 112), the Supreme Court of India addressed a pivotal issue concerning the allotment of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (L.P.G.) distributorship. The matter involved the validity of the successful applicant’s (the 4th Respondent’s) rights over the land offered for setting up the distributorship and whether any subsequent addition or substitution of land could negate disqualification.

The Appellant, Jagwant Kaur, challenged the selection process, claiming that the 4th Respondent had submitted an application with land that was either not exclusively available or in some manner ineligible. Both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court rejected these contentions, ultimately prompting the Appellant to seek redress before the Supreme Court.

Essentially, the decision clarifies the scope of various guidelines, particularly those allowing an applicant to offer alternate land in the context of LPG distributorship allotments. It also reaffirms the procedure for verifying whether land is possessed by the applicant on an exclusive basis or subject to co-ownership, thereby underscoring the threshold requirements established in earlier guidelines and case law.

Summary of the Judgment

After condoning delay and granting leave, the Hon’ble Court undertook a thorough examination of the appellant’s allegations and the corporate guidelines for LPG distributorship allotment:

The Supreme Court observed that the 4th Respondent’s original land offer stemmed from a valid lease. Though the same lessor executed multiple leases, each lease encompassed distinct parcels of land.
A dispute arose when the same lessor offered seemingly overlapping or identical land parcels to two different distributorship applicants. However, the Court found that the parcels were in fact separate and contiguous portions within a larger tract owned by the same lessor and his family.
Where conflicting affidavits and ownership claims appeared, the Court gave credence to revenue records and the initial affidavit that supported the 4th Respondent’s exclusive lease of one distinct parcel.
The Court concluded that any “disability” alleged against the 4th Respondent—based on the confusion over land—did not stand because (1) the determinative guidelines did not prohibit offering alternate land when the original tract was in question, and (2) the credible documents indicated that the 4th Respondent indeed held a valid lease.

Ultimately, the Court dismissed the Civil Appeal, thus affirming the validity of the 4th Respondent’s allotment.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Supreme Court based its reasoning in part on its earlier decision in MRINMOY MAITY v. CHHANDA KOLEY and Others (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 30152 of 2018, decided on 18.04.2024). That ruling introduced the principle that an applicant may offer alternate land if the original land is found deficient or unsuitable, provided all essential criteria in the advertisement and guidelines are met.

By citing Mrinmoy Maity, the Court underscored:

Flexibility: The allotment process affords a certain leeway to ensure an eligible applicant is not unfairly disqualified on technical grounds that are rectifiable.
Guidelines Relevance: The changes or “modifications” to the guidelines introduced on 15.04.2015 explicitly permit substitution of land in certain circumstances, subject to a showing of good faith and conformity with the original advertisement specifications.

Legal Reasoning

Throughout the Judgment (see paragraphs 6–11), the Court looked intensively at the factual disputes regarding whether the land offered was truly the same as that offered by another applicant. The key aspects of the Court’s legal reasoning can be summarized as follows:

Verification of Ownership and Possession: The Court stressed that joint ownership or co-lease of land invokes the need for “No Objection Certificates” (NOCs). However, in this case, only one individual lessor had conclusive rights to the land in question, which was leased solely to the 4th Respondent. Therefore, no co-owner NOCs were required.
Contradictory Affidavits: The lessor filed two conflicting affidavits on the same parcel of land. The Court resolved this by relying on credible official revenue records that showed the separate nature of each leased portion.
Permissibility of Alternate Land: Because of ambiguous statements by the lessor, the 4th Respondent secured another property. As clarified in Mrinmoy Maity, the guidelines permit offering alternate land if the original land’s validity is uncertain, provided the criteria remain satisfied.
Continuing Eligibility: The 4th Respondent had already begun operations and established the distributorship for several years. The Court found no basis for nullifying an otherwise valid allotment under the relevant guidelines.

Impact

This Judgment is likely to have a lasting impact on the procedural aspects of allotting LPG distributorships and possibly other government-issued licenses based on land availability. Some immediate consequences include:

Elimination of Technical Pitfalls: Applicants who face bona fide obstacles in finalizing or validating land ownership can rely on the Court’s reaffirmation that alternate land may be offered to cure such defects.
Strengthened Reliance on Revenue Records: The Judgment illustrates how crucial accurate and contemporaneous revenue records are in resolving conflicting affidavits or ambiguous property claims.
Clarification on Joint Ownership: Entities such as the Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) or other agencies shall now have a reinforced guideline that NOCs are needed only when multiple parties have interest in the same land. Sole ownership or exclusive lease by one individual obviates the need for further consents.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Some of the more intricate legal concepts addressed in this case can be simplified as follows:

Joint Ownership and NOCs: When multiple people own land, all co-owners must provide permission (No Objection Certificate) before the land can be used for a single applicant’s distributorship. If the land is held by one person alone, no additional NOCs are necessary.
Alternate Land Provision: Under guidelines introduced in 2015, if the initial land parcel fails to meet requirements or its validity is put into question, an applicant may suggest a different land plot as long as it meets the original advertisement’s specifications.
Lease Agreements vs. Ownership: Official guidelines typically allow either ownership or a long-term lease (often 15 or 20 years) to satisfy “possession” requirements for establishing an LPG distributorship. Possession must be demonstrated by valid legal instruments and publicly recorded revenue documents.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Jagwant Kaur v. Union of India (2025 INSC 112) solidifies the principle that a validly selected candidate for LPG distributorship may retain eligibility even if unforeseen complications arise concerning the original land, provided they offer an alternate site in conformity with applicable guidelines. In particular:

The Court clarified that contradictory affidavits from lessors or the existence of contiguous parcels do not automatically disqualify an applicant unless there is clear evidence of a shared or overlapping tract.
The decision reaffirms the minimal requirement for NOCs when the land is jointly held, ensuring genuine checks on eligibility without imposing rigid or senseless conditions.
The ruling gives further credence to the progressive approach of allowing alternate land to minimize injustices caused by third-party recalcitrance or sudden changes in land availability.

By upholding the 4th Respondent’s selection, the Judgment underscores a sound, balanced approach in adjudicating potential land issues in LPG distributorship allocations. It ensures that deserving applicants are not denied franchises on account of issues beyond their control, while emphasizing the obligation to fully comply with relevant procedures and guidelines.