LexCOLLECTOR, DISTT. GWALIOR AND ANOTHER versus CINE EXHIBITORS P. LTD. AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2012] 2 S.C.R. 932 COLLECTOR, DISTI. GWALIOR AND ANOTHER v. CINE EXHIBITORS P. LTD. AND ANOTHEI~ (Civil Appeal Nos.281-282 of 2012 ) JANUARY 11, 2012 [DALVEER BHANDARI AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] Town Planning - Nazul land - Leased .by Gwalior Development Authority (GOA) in public auction - Subsequent C termination of the lease by lessor-GOA and lessee-first respondent asked to hand over possession of the land - Writ petition by first respondent dismissed by Single Judge of High Court -Division Bench of High Court, however, held that cancellation of the lease was unsustainable - Plea raised by D State that there was no transfer of the land by the State in favour of GOA, hence, the grant of lease by GOA in favGur of first respondent was ab initio void and, therefore, there was no right in favour of the respondent to retain possession rejected by Division Bench on ground that since the GOA had E granted lease in auction conducted with the knowledge of the State, the State was estopped from raising the plea that the · land had not been transferred to the GOA - Held: Ncizul land, unless notified, does not automatically get vested in any authority or trust - Unless affirmative steps are takem by the F State Government by issuing a notification changing the character of the land and transferring it in favour of any authority, corporation or municipality, it maintains: its own character, i.e., nazul land - In the case at hand, nothing on record that the nazul land in question had ever been notified for transfer in favour of the GOA - GOA never became the G owner of the land or had the authority to deal with the land and, therefore, it could not have put the land to auction for any purpose whatsoever- First respondent cannot assert any right or advance any claim to remain in possession ancf run the H 932 COLLECTOR, DISTT. GWALIOR v. CINE EXHIBITORS 933 P. LTD. cinema hall thereon and that too after cancellation of the A licence for running the cinema hall, solely on the basis of a lease granted by its lessor-GOA, a statutory authority, which had no right on the land as the ownership still remained with the State Government - GOA could not have granted the lease of the property belonging to the State Government as B it was Nazul land meant for the Public Works Department - The State Government and its functionaries are at liberty to proceed against the first respondent for its eviction - First respondent may take recourse to arbitration against the GOA for any other relief as entitled in law- M.P. Town Improvement c Trust Act, 1960 - Chapters IV and V - Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gramin Adhiniyam, 1973 - ss. 38 and 87. Doctrines - Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel - Inapplicability of - Held: The doctrine/principle cannot be soundly embedded or treated to be sacrosanct when a public D authority carries out a representation or a promise which is prohibited by law or is devoid of the authority of law - Administrative Law. Doctrines - Doctrine of public policy - Invocation of - E Grant of lease by Gwalior Development Authority (GOA) in respect of properly belonging to the State Government - -" Challenge to - Held: The doctrine of public policy becomes enforceable when an action affects or offends public interest or where injury to the public at large is manifest - On facts, F the collective interest in the property could not have been jeopardised by usurpation of power/authority by GOA - Such assumption of power by the GOA made the whole action sans substratum and thereby a nullity. The Gwalior Development Authority (GOA) had G granted· lease of land in public auction. The land in question was recorded as nazul land meant for the Public Works Department. The lease was granted to first respondent-company for the purpose of construction of a cinema hall. After execution of the lease deed, the first H 934 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R. A respondent-company constructed a cinema hall and commenced business. However, as certain disputes al'ose between the Directors of the company, it was eventually resolved by it that the licence for running the cinema should be surrendered and pursuant themto, the B Collector cancelled the licence for running the 1c:inema hall. After closure of the cinema hall, the less<>r-GDA terminated the lease and directed the first respe>ndent- lessee to hand over possession of the land in question. C The writ petition
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.