MALWA OIL MILLS Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order of Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench made on November 21, 1980 in Misc. Petition No. 44/79. The respondents issued a notice to the appellants calling upon them to remove the sign -board put up by the appellants in the property in question. Calling that notice in question, the appellants filed writ petition in the High Court admitting that pursuant to a notification issued under Section 71 of the M.P. Town Improvement Trust Act 1960, a housing scheme was evolved and pursuant to that notification the land stood vested in the Housing Board. It is their further case that thereafter since possession could not be secured by the Housing Board, the appellants association was requested by a letter to have the possession secured from the illegal occupants and subsequent thereto industrial scheme was formulated since the mills were burnt out in a fire. On the basis thereof, they secured the possession and entered into an agreement with the erstwhile owners in respect of plot Nos., 4 and 5 in the said land of an extent of 19338 sq.ft. and subsequently, they obtained sale deed on 21.8.1972 for a consideration of Rs.27,073.20. Since the respondents had promised that they would convert the scheme into non -residential scheme, they were stopped to take action to have them ejected. The High Court has rejected the contentions. The finding of the High Court is that there was no promise made by the Government and the appellants had not suffered any detriment in furtherance of any promise made. The impugned order is only a direction to remove the sign -board. The appellants were in possession of the land and that, therefore, the relief sought for could not be granted. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

(2.) SHRI Chitale, learned senior counsel for the appellants, contended that in view of the agreement. Annex.B, dated 15.11.1972 and revised agreement dated 17.11.73, the Government are estopped from acting to the detriment of the appellants and, therefore, on the basis faith of those agreements, the appellants came to purchase the land from the erstwhile owners. The view of the High Court, therefore, is not correct in law. We find no force in the contention. Section 71 of the Act reads as under:

(3.) THE question then is, whether any promise was made by the Government? The High Court has recorded a finding, and in our view quoted rightly, that there is no promise made to the appellants. What all can be called out from those two agreements relied on by the appellants, is that there was some thinking of converting the residential scheme into non -residential scheme. As stated earlier, unless the scheme is actually converted, it does not give any right much less a vested right in plot Nos. 4 and 5 as claimed by them. The appellants had not acted to their detriment pursuant to the alleged promise. So the question of estoppel does not arise.