AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jagadeesan, J.—The Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the show-cause notice issued by the first Respondent herein dated
11.3.98 directing the Petitioner to submit his explanation as to why the land allotted to them cannot be taken back by the Government.
The Petitioner''s case is that the second Respondent, an undertaking of the first Respondent, caused an advertisement for setting up of a Theme
Park in Coimbatore under the name and style of Annai Sathya Children''s Educational and Amusement Complex. The Petitioners submitted their
bid for taking up 5 acres of land in the proposed Theme Park for setting up a shopping complex-cum-country club at an annual rental value of Rs.
7,63,000/-. The Petitioner''s bid was accepted by the first Respondent in G.O. Ms. No. 277 Social Welfare & NMP Department dated 20.10.94
and the lease was granted in favour of the Petitioner for a period of thirty three years. Pursuant to the said G.O. the second Respondent executed a
registered lease deed in favour of the Petitioner and possession was handed over to the Petitioner for the commencement of the development
work.
At this juncture, two writ petitions were filed before this Court by way of public interest litigation. In W.P.1152/95 the prayer sought for was for
the issue of a writ of mandamus, directing the Respondents therein to form Annai Sathya Theme Park as proposed in G.O. Ms. No. 900 dated
18.10.93 and to forbear the Respondents from allotting the same for any purpose other than the formation of the Theme Park, contending that the
hotels, shopping complex, country club etc were not related to the amusement park.
Another writ petition W.P.9695/95 was to quash the G.O. Ms. No. 900 Revenue (M2) Department dated 18.10.93 by which the lands which
were originally with the Government Medical College, Coimbatore were transferred to the Social Welfare Department for the purpose of the
establishment of the second Respondent.
In W.P. 1152/95 two other persons, in whose favour the lease was granted, had also been impleaded. The then Government defended their
action and the lessees also justified the decision of the Government in leasing out the land and ultimately on 22.9.95 both the writ petitions, were
dismissed. The writ appeals filed against the said judgment were withdrawn.
While so, the present impugned notice had been issued by the first Respondent; especially when the Petitioner''s application for planning
permission is pending and after the Petitioner had invested nearly 16 Crores of rupees for putting up the complex. The impugned show-cause
notice is diametrically contrary to the stand taken by the Government in the earlier proceedings and as such the same is illegal. When once the
present Government had expressed its mind, the formality of sending the reply may not be of any use and hence the writ petition has been filed.
The first Respondent has filed counter, wherein it is stated the Collector of Coimbatore has sent a Report stating that out of 153.21 acres of
land in Vilankunchi village of Coimbatore District which were acquired for the purpose of establishing the Government Medical College, 25.19
acres forming a separate block is lying vacant which is adjacent to NH-47 and the same is suitable for the purpose of establishing amusement park.
The said Report was accepted and the Government decided to transfer the said land from the Medical Department to Social Welfare Department.
Accordingly orders were issued in G.O. Ms. No. 900 Revenue (M2) Department, dated 18.10.93 permitting the Social Welfare Department to
enter upon the land of an extent of 25.19 acres at Vilankurichi village, Coimbatore North Taluk which belongs to the Medical Department for
establishing an amusement park for children, pending decision regarding the mode of conveyance of the land like transfer/lease and fixation of the
land value. Subsequently the Government passed an order in G.O. Ms. No. 192 Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department,
dated 6.7.94 regarding setting up of Annai Sathya Amusement Park at Coimbatore, permitting the second Respondent to take up the project of
the amusement park and for putting up a motel by the Tourism Department, if feasible. This G.O. was partially modified by the Government in
G.O. Ms. No. 254 Social Welfare & Nutritious Meal Programme Department, dated 22.9.94 permitting the second Respondent to take up the
project either on its own or as joint venture in collaboration with private parties or lease/project sharing basis and also permitting the private sector
to set up motel/hotel by giving the land on long term lease. Thereafter the Government has approved the proposal of the second Respondent to
give an extent of 5 acres of land to M/s. The Kenilworth, Calcutta, the highest tenderer on lease for an initial period of 33 years at a lease rent of
7.63 lakhs per annum. In G.O. Ms. No. 277 Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department dated 20.10.94 the Government
approved the proposal to give 5 acres of land to the tenderer M/s. Jenneys Residency (P) Ltd., Trichy, the Petitioner herein, on lease for an initial
period of 33 years at an annual rent of Rs. 7.63 lakhs per annum. The second Respondent entered into an agreement with the Petitioner on
27.10.94 and the possession was handed over to the Petitioners and the lease deed was registered in January, 1995. By another order G.O. Ms.
No. 3, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department, dated 9.1.95, the second Respondent was permitted to place 10 acres of
land at the disposal of one Jumbo''s Park (P) Ltd., Chennai in the same terms and conditions. Since by G.O. Ms. No. 900 Revenue (M2)
Department dated 18.10.93 the first Respondent was only permitted to enter upon the land, pending final decision regarding the mode of
conveyance of the land and as no final decision has been taken, now the first Respondent has decided to resume possession of the land; especially
when the transfer has not been effected in favour of the first Respondent and hence the show-cause notice was issued. Another writ petition
W.P.4404/98 filed by M/s. New Kenilworth Hotel Ltd., challenging the similar show-cause notice was dismissed and hence this writ petition is
also liable to be dismissed. Since as per the records no transfer was made in favour of the first Respondent, the transaction entered into by the first
Respondent cannot be enforced. On 7.4.98 while granting the interim order, this Court clearly stated that the interim stay will not prevent the
Petitioner from submitting his explanation to the impugned notice and the authorities to dispose of the matter after hearing the Petitioner. In view of
the said order, the impugned show-cause notice is maintainable and as such the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
The second Respondent has filed separate counter in which all the facts stated by the Petitioner as well as the first Respondent are admitted,
except stating that in view of the interim order permitting the Petitioners to submit the explanation for the impugned show-cause notice and directing
the Respondents to dispose of the same on merits, the writ petition is not maintainable, the second Respondent has not stated anything on merits.
Mr. P.S. Raman, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that even though in G.O. Ms. No. 900 the mode of transfer is to be finalised
by the Revenue Department of Government in favour of the first Respondent, the possession has been handed over to the first Respondent and
several orders have been issued by the first Respondent permitting the second Respondent to enter into the contract with the Petitioner and others.
When the parties have proceeded to enter into the contract pursuant to the promise of the first Respondent that the land is under the control of the
first Respondent, now it is not open to the first Respondent to withdraw such promise and try to resume the land. The conduct of the first
Respondent is affected by the principles of promissory estoppel; especially when the first Respondent has permitted the parties to proceed further
with negotiation and finalisation of the terms. The first Respondent now has to request the Revenue Department to decide only the mode of transfer
in favour of the first Respondent and to complete the formality of transfer of land and as such the first Respondent has no authority to issue the
show-cause notice and hence the writ petition challenging the show-cause notice is maintainable.
Mr. T.R. Rajagopalan, the learned Additional Advocate General, on behalf of the first Respondent contended that admittedly there is no
transfer of land in favour of the first Respondent and as such the first Respondent has no right to proceed further and enter into an agreement with
the third parties, through the 2nd Respondent when the first Respondent is not the legal owner of the property, the transaction entered in to by
them through the second Respondent under the presumption that they are the owners of the land is null and void. The mere handing over
possession to the first Respondent will not confer any right on them to deal with the property as they like and consequently the Petitioner and other
lessees cannot claim any right. Further the writ petition filed against the show-cause notice is not maintainable as it is open to the Petitioner to
convince the first Respondent by offering their explanation as to why the possession of the land cannot be resumed and ultimately it is for the first
Respondent to decide after considering the explanation submitted by the Petitioner. As no final decision had been taken so far, the writ petition is
pre-mature and is liable to be dismissed.
I carefully considered the contention of both the counsel. The following issues arise for considerations
i) Whether the writ petition is maintainable against the show-cause notice?
ii) Whether the Petitioner is entitled for the benefit of the promissory estoppel?
iii) Whether the impugned show-cause notice is liable to be quashed on the ground that the first Respondent having acquaisced with the
transactions entered into by the second Respondent with the Petitioner and approved of the same.
11a. So far as the first issue is concerned, normally a writ petition need not be entertained against a show-cause notice. But in this case, since I had
an occasion to deal with the stand taken by the Government in the earlier writ petitions filed by way of public interest litigation, I thought it is better
to give a final decision instead of the Petitioner being harassed.
In fact the learned Counsel for the Petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that the writ petition W.P.4404/98 filed by New Kenilworth
Hotel Ltd., challenging the similar show-cause notice was dismissed by this Court and ultimately the first Respondent has passed final orders
resuming possession and M/s. New Kenilworth Hotel Ltd., has filed another writ petition challenging the same. This would reveal that the first
Respondent having made up its mind to resume possession has issued the show-cause notice and hence the writ petition need not be dismissed on
the technical ground that it has been filed only against the show-cause notice. In view of the stand taken by the Government in the earlier
proceedings, I am of the view that it is not open to the first Respondent to issue the impugned show-cause notice.
It may be seen from the impugned show-cause notice that the Petitioner has been asked to submit the reply showing cause as to why the land
allotted to them cannot be taken back by the Government on the ground that the transfer of the land to the Social Welfare and NMP Department
the first Respondent herein has not been absolute.
It is worthwhile to consider the stand taken by the Government in W.P.1152/95 filed by one Mr. A.S. Vijayaraghavan, as public interest
litigation. The then Advocate General put forth the contention that an extent of 25.19 acres of land was taken from the Medical Department and
handed over to the Social Welfare Department and was entrusted with MAHAM the second Respondent herein for their use in order to raise
funds for the welfare of the scheme. The MAHAM felt that it may not be possible for them to invest the amount and it will be a financial constraint
on their part. When the land has been allotted to MAHAM for the welfare scheme and when MAHAM felt the initial commitment, in order to
realise the profit from out of the land for the use of the welfare scheme may not be possible, the other modes of getting the income from the
property was discussed and finally it was resolved to lease out the property and derive the income for MAHAM the second Respondent herein.
For raising the income, originally it was proposed to have a joint venture and profit sharing and ultimately it was found that the same is not feasible
and decided to lease out the land and MAHAM can utilise the lease amount for the beneficial needs, because the same has no financial
commitment in order to augment the income for MAHAM. It was further contended by the then Advocate General in the said earlier writ petition,
that the total extent of 25.19 acres of land had been transferred to Social Welfare Department, which in turn, placed in the hands of the Tamil
Nadu Corporation for Development of Women for utilisation. Out of the said extent, 10 acres is to be utilised for the amusement park and 5 acres
is for hotel complex which extent has been leased out to M/s. Jumbo''s Park (P) Ltd., Thirupur and M/s. Jenneys Residency (P) Ltd., Trichy
respectively. The lease has been granted in favour of the abovesaid persons, after calling for the tenders. This contention of the learned Advocate
General is extracted in the earlier judgment dated 22.9.95 in W.P.1152/95.
From the said contention it is very clear that the stand of the then Government was that the land has been transferred to the first Respondent
from the Medical College and consequently the second Respondent was entrusted with the possession of the entire extent of 25.19 acres of land.
Thereafter the second Respondent herein also entered into the lease agreement. Having put forth such a contention in the earlier writ petition, now
it is not open to the Government to content that the lands have not been transferred to the first Respondent and hence they want to resume the
land.
Since the first Respondent has raised the plea of non-transfer and the impugned order refers to several earlier Government Orders, it is
worthwhile to consider the terms of the Government Order also G.O. Ms. No. 900 Revenue (M2) Department dated 18.10.93 clearly reveals that
the Government has decided to accept the proposal of the Collector, Coimbatore to transfer the land from the Medical Department to Social
Welfare Department and taking into account the urgency of the Social Welfare Department, the Government permitted the Social Welfare
Department to enter upon the land of an extent of 25.19 acres pending decision regarding the mode of conveyance of the land like transfer/lease
and fixation of the land value. There is no dispute that pursuant to the said Government Order, the Social Welfare Department, the first
Respondent herein, entered into possession of the said land.
Thereafter the Government issued the project features in G.O. Ms. No. 192 Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department,
dated 6.7.94 which is as follows:
Social Welfare & Nutritious Meal Programme Department
G.O. Ms. No. 192
Dt. 6.7.94.
Pava Aani 22
Thiruvalluvar
Aandu 2025
Read again:
G.O. Ms. No. 111, SW & NMP dt.29.4.93.
G.O. Ms. No. 900(Rev) dt. 18.11.93.
From the M.D., Maham, D.O. Lr. No. 2630/E1/Maham/93dt.l9.1.94
-----
ORDER:
In the G.O. Ms. No. 111, SW&NMP dt.29.4.93, orders were issued for the creation of Annai Sandhya Children World at Coimbatore.
Subsequently in G.O. Ms. No. 900 (Rev) dated 18.11.93, the Social Welfare Department has been permitted to enter upon the land of an extent
of 25.19 acres at Vilankurichi village of Coimbatore North Taluk for the establishment of an Amusement Park for children pending decision
regarding the mode of conveyance of the land.
The Government after careful consideration, pass the following orders regarding setting up of the Annai Sathya Amusement Park at Coimbatore.
a) Maham will take up the project
b) The land will be given at nominal lease or outright transfer to Maham for an initial period beyond which the question of changing higher rates etc.
can be gone into the terms for nominal lease or outright transfer to Maham will be decided separately.
c) The project will be executed by Maham based on donor contribution. For large items it can incur a maximum total debt of Rs. 1.25 Crores on
this project. It will service this debt based on earnings.
d) Small or amusement items costing less than Rs. 10 lakhs will be put up by donors of such items as outright donations. Bigger items will be put up
by borrowing from banks.
e) The motel will be put up by Tourism Department if feasible.
The Managing Director. Maham shall take necessary further action on the light of the above orders.
The Government direct that on behalf of Maham, the Director of Social Welfare who is on the Board of Directors in Maham will personally
attend to this work assisted by the representatives of Industries, Education and Information and Tourism Departments.
Maham will make suitable arrangement to charge entrance fees, other fees, etc so that the venture generates revenues to service the debt and
lease rent. Surplus if any thereafter will be utilised for women''s development.
This order issues with the concurrence of Finance Department vide its Uo. No. 145/DS(B) 194-1 dt.5.7.94.
sd/....
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
(Emphasis supplied by me)
Though under this G.O.MAHAM is to take up these projects, Clauses 2(a) and 2(e) were subsequently modified by G.O. Ms. No. 254 Social
Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme (S.W.V) Department, as follows:
...after careful consideration, the Government issue the following orders, in partial modification of the G.O. Ms. No. 192, SW &NMP
Department, dated 6.7.1994.
Existing Paragraphs 2(a) and 2(b) shall be substituted with the following orders:
2(a) Maham will take up the project either on its own or as a Joint Venture in collaboration with Private Parties on lease/Project sharing basis.
2(e) The Motel/Hotel Project may be left to Private Sector by giving the base land required on long term lease basis. ""MAHAM"" will utilise the
lease rent for carrying out Department activities in the Annai Sandhya Amusement Park, Coimbatore.
The Government also approve the proposal of the Managing Director, Maham and Project Director, ""MAHAM"" to give an extent of Five acres
of land to M/s. The Kenilworth, Calcutta, the highest tenderer on lease for an initial period of 33 years (and renewable thereafter) at a lease rent of
Rs. 7.63 lakhs (Rupees seven lakhs and sixty three thousand only) per annum. The conditions of lease shall be finalised by ""MAHAM"" and lease
agreement on standard pattern shall be concluded by the Managing Director, ""Maham"". From the above modification the original proposal of the
MAHAM taking up the project had been diluted to the joint venture in collaboration with the private party and so far as the establishment of the
Motel is concerned, it has to be left to the private sector. Ultimately the lease of the land for the hotel project in favour of M/s. Kenilworth,
Calcutta was also approved by the Government.
Then came G.O. Ms. No. 277 Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme (S.W.V) Department, dated 20.10.94 in which the entire
development had been extracted, as follows:
Social Welfare And Nutritious Meal Programme
(S.W.V) Department
G.O. Ms. No. 277
Dated: 20.10.1994
Read:
G.O. Ms. No. 1 11, SW & NMP Department, dated 29.4.1993.
G.O. Ms. No. 900 Revenue Department, dated 18.11.1993.
G.O. Ms. No. 192, SW & NMP Department dated 6.7.1994.
From the Managing Director, MAHAM, Letter No. 2360/El/Maham/93, dated 5.9.1994.
G.O. Ms. No. 254 SW & NMP Department, dated 22.9.1994.
Letter received from M/s. Jenneys Residency Pvt. Ltd., letter dated 14.10.1994.
-----
ORDER
In the G.O. Ms. No. 192, SW & NMP Department dated 6.7.1994, orders were issued regarding the setting up of the Annai Sandhya
Amusement Park at Coimbatore. Among other things, the Government have ordered in this Government order that ''Maham'' will take up the
project.
As the Managing Director, ""Maham"" and Project Director ""Maham"" in the letter 4th read above have explained in detail that the ""Annai Sandhya
Amusement Park"" could not be run by ""MAHAM"" on its own, due to financial constraints, the Government have issued amendments to the G.O.,
third read above vide G.O. fifth read above permitting Maham, either to run the Amusement Park by Maham on its own or as a Joint Venture in
collaboration with private parties on lease/profit sharing basis.
The Government have also ordered in partial modification of G.O. third read above that the Motel/Hotel project may be left to private sector by
giving the land required on long term lease basis vide G.O. fifth read above.
In para 5 of G.O. fifth read above, the Government also approved the proposal of the Managing Director, Maham and Project Director,
Maham, to give an extent of Five acres of land to the highest tenderers on lease for an initial period of 33 years, at the lease rent of Rs. 7.63 lakhs
per annum for putting up a Hotel by Kenilworth. Kenilworth, as the highest bidder in that tender, had quoted less, but Finance had advised the
economic lease rent of Rs. 7.63 lakhs per annum, to which the party was pressed to agree, and order were accordingly issued.
Now, with a view to generate additional funds required for setting up the amusement Park at Coimbatore, the Government have considered
proposals for giving another five acres of land, out of the 25.19 acres of land allotted for the ""Annai Sandhya Amusement Park at Coimbatore"", to
the tenderers M/s. Jenneys Residency Pvt. Ltd., Trichy on lease for an initial period of 33 years (renewable thereafter) for setting UP of Shopping
Ar Cade and Country Club, exclusively for members of the Club, at a negotiated offer of Rs. 7.63 lakhs per annum for five acres.
After careful consideration, the Government approve the proposal to give an extent of Five Acre of land to the tenderer M/s. Jennevs Residency
Pvt. Ltd. Trichv on lease for an initial period of 33 years (Renewable thereafter) at the negotiated lease rent of Rs. 7,63,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs
and sixty three thousand only) per annum. This rate has already been approved in G.O. 5th read above. The conditions of lease shall be finalised
by ""MAHAM"" and lease agreement on standard pattern shall be concluded by ""MAHAM"". The Collector of Coimbatore District is requested to
arrange for the early issue of the licence, permission, clearance, approval etc. required by M/s. Jennevs Residency Pvt. Ltd. Trichy and also for the
Hotel Project, so that the Annai Sandhya Amusement Park is commissioned early.
(By Order of the Governor)
R. Kirubhakaran,
Secretary to Government
(Emphasis supplied by me)
From the above Government Order the history of MAHAM and the project and the mode of raising funds are very clear. The last paragraph
of the G.O. specifies the approval of the Government regarding the proposal to give an extent of 5 acres of land to the Petitioner herein on lease
and the conditions of the lease shall be finalised by MAHAM and the District Collector of Coimbatore was requested to arrange for the early issue
of the licence, permission, clearance, approval etc., required by the Petitioner and also for the hotel project so that Annai Sathya Amusement Park
can be commissioned early. Pursuant to this, there is no dispute that the registered lease agreement had been entered into between the second
Respondent and the Petitioner as well as the other parties. In fact the lease deed was executed by the parties on 27.10.94 and the same was
registered on 19.1.95. Every transaction between the second Respondent and the Petitioner as well as the other parties had been entered into only
with the approval of the Governments
G.O. Ms. No. 900 Revenue (M2) Department dated 18.10.93 permitted the Social Welfare Department to enter upon the land in order to
carry out the work. The Social Welfare Department took possession and handed over to the second Respondent herein in order to expedite the
commencement of the amusement park. Thereafter the lands were leased out by the second Respondent by calling for open tenders and the lease
agreement has been entered into between the parties with the approval of the Government. Having approved all the transactions now, I am of the
view that it is not open to the Government much less for the first Respondent to set at naught all the transactions for which the Government was an
active participant.
At this stage it may be worthwhile to refer few salient conditions in the leasedeed.
It is mutually agreed between the Lessor and the Lessee that the demised premises more particularly described below Shall be handed over to
the Lessee on or before 30.11.1994 by MAHAM.
The lessee shall uproot, cut down or destroy such trees, plants, groves or brushes to make the land fit for the construction of shopping
complex and country club at his cost.
All the project clearances, licences, approval & permission shall be obtained by the Lessee from the prescribed authorities and the Collector of
Coimbatore will arrange for early issue.
The leasee should complete the shopping complex and country club project within one year from the date of taking over of the site and from
the plans sanctioned by the authorities.
Hence the lease deed also contains the schedule of property, specifying the extent as well as the boundaries. More over, a rough plan has also
been attached with the lease deed, demarcating 5 acres of lease hold land in favour of the Petitioner.
The show-cause notice has been issued only on a technical ground that the land, has not been strictly transferred in favour of the Social
Welfare Department. Once again a glance at G.O. Ms. No. 900 Revenue (M2) Department, dated 18.10.93 makes very clear that the Social
Welfare Department was permitted to enter upon the land pending a decision regarding the mode of conveyance of the land like transfer/lease and
fixation of the land value. Pending decision regarding the mode of conveyance, the Government, by their own conduct, has approved the
subsequent transactions by the Social Welfare Department after taking possession of the land. When once the Government has permitted the
Social Welfare Department to enter upon the land and thereafter approved all the transactions entered into by the said Department the only venue
open to the Government is they have to take a final decision with regard to the mode of conveyance alone arid nothing else. The Government has
reserved the right to decide the mode of conveyance alone and this right will not confer or empower the Government to nullify all the transactions
entered into by the Social Welfare Department subsequent to their taking possession of the land. Hence except to decide the mode of transfer, the
Government cannot do anything with regard to the transactions already entered into by the Social Welfare Department and others. Hence when the
Government has no power to resume the land, equally the first Respondent also cannot resume the land. Hence, the show-cause notice issued is
only to harass the Petitioner as such the writ petition is maintainable against the issue of show-cause notice.
So far as the next contention is concerned, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner pursuant to the auction notice,
submitted the tender and being the highest bidder, his tender -was accepted and possession was handed over and with the full knowledge of the
authorities, the Petitioner has also put up the construction. Since the Government has approved the lease in favour of the Petitioner and the
Petitioner having totally changed his position by putting up the construction, the Petitioner will be entitled for the benefit of the principles of
promissory estoppel and it is not open to the first Respondent to resume toe land.
The learned Additional Advocate General however contended that the principles of promissory estoppel has no role to play since the lease
agreement had been entered into by the parties under the mistaken impression that mere was a valid transfer of land in favour of the first
Respondent. When the transaction has been entered into by the parties under the mistake of fact such transaction would not attract the principles
of promissory estoppel.
As already an elaborate discussion is made with regard to the right of the Government to resume land and their conduct in setting up
contradictory pleas, there is no need to once again repeat the same. There is no mistake of fact between the parties in entering into the lease
transaction. G.O. Ms. No. 900 Revenue (M2) Department dated 18.10.93 clearly empowers the Social Welfare Department to enter upon the
land and further consequential orders of the Government approving the transactions entered into by the Social Welfare Department. Hence the
parties were fully aware of the right flow from the transactions. The parties are fully aware that except a decision with regard to the mode of
conveyance in favour of the Social Welfare Department, rest of the transactions are all approved and as such the lessees have got every right to be
in possession of the land for the agreed period under the terms and conditions of the lease agreement. The Government can decide any mode of
transfer to transfer the land in favour of the Social Welfare Department and it is the matter between the Government and me Social Welfare
Department which has nothing to do with me accrued interest of lessees. It is for the first Respondent to get the land transferred. Hence the
Petitioner will be entitled for the benefit of the principles of promissory estoppel also.
In fact it has been held by the Supreme Court in the judgment reported in Gujarat State Financial Corporation Vs. Lotus Hotels Pvt. Ltd., as
follows:
Thus the principle of promissory estoppel would certainly estop the Corporation from backing out of its obligation arising from a solemn promise
made by it to the Respondent.
Jit Ram Shiv Kumar and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, which slightly differs from the view taken by this Court in the aforementioned
decision at any rate would not help the Appellant because it only lays down that the principle of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked for
preventing the Government from discharging its functions under the law. Even then, it was held that when the officer authorised under a scheme
enters into an agreement and makes a representation and a person acting on that representation puts himself in a disadvantageous position, the
Court is entitled to regulate the officer to act according to the scheme and the agreement or the representation. The officer cannot arbitrarily on his
mere whim ignore his promise on some undefined and undisclosed grounds of necessity or changed the conditions to the prejudice of a person
which had acted upon such representation and put himself in an disadvantageous position. On this point, both the decisions concur and the ratio
would govern the decision in this appeal. The Respondent acting upon the solemn promise made by the Appellant incurred huge expenditure and if
the Appellant is not held to its promise, the Respondent would be put in a very disadvantageous position and therefore also the principle of
promissory estoppel can be invoked in this case.
Only the first Respondent permitted the second Respondent to proceed with the lease of the land in favour of the Petitioner and approved the
terms and conditions of the lease also. The Petitioner got possession of the lease hold property with the approval of the first Respondent. While so,
it is not open to the first Respondent to resume the land on the technical ground; that too taking advantage of their own inaction as well as under
the misconstruction of G.O. Ms. No. 900 Revenue (M2) Department dated 18.10.93 as if it empowers the Government to resume the land from
the first Respondent. Even assuming the land has not been validly transferred in favour of the first Respondent, at this stage it is not for the first
Respondent to resume the land, having permitted the lessees to proceed further, pursuant to the lease deed executed by the second Respondent.
So far as the third issue is concerned, it is also discussed in issue No. 1 itself. The several G. Os extracted therein clearly establish the fact that
the Government has approved all the transactions entered into by the Social Welfare Department and as such the lease entered into by the second
Respondent with the Petitioner is with full knowledge of the first Respondent; that too with the approval of the Government. It is for the first
Respondent to insist for the transfer of the land in their favour either by way of lease or by way of outright sale by the Government. Without doing
so, now the first Respondent is trying to take advantage of their failure in getting the transfer of land for which the Petitioner cannot be put to suffer.
When the Petitioner was put on notice that only the mode of transfer is to be decided and the Respondent had permitted the Petitioner to proceed
with the further progress of the scheme, the Petitioner acted upon such representation and took the property on lease and invested the amount.
Hence it is not open to the first Respondent at this stage to resume the land because there was no transfer in their favour. The first Respondent has
to take necessary steps to have the land transferred in their favour by either one of the mode specified in G.O. Ms. No. 900 Revenue (M2)
Department dated 18.10.93.
For all the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the impugned show-cause notice is liable to be quashed as the first Respondent has no
authority to resume possession of the lease-hold land from the Petitioner. Accordingly the same is quashed and the writ petition is allowed.