LexMANGAL AMUSEMENT PARK (P) LTD. & ANR. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2012] 10 S.C.R. 388 MANGAL AMUSEMENT PARK (P) LTD. & ANR. V. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 6105 of 2012) AUGUST 28, 2012 [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] Town Planning - Town planning scheme of Indore - Allotment of land - To appellants for establishment of C Children's amusement park - Subsequently State Government changing the land-use from 'commercial' to 'regional park' and further directing the Indore Development Authority (/DA) to invite tenders afresh for re-allotment of the land - Three-fold plea of appellants- a) that the document of D allotment was a document of lease and not simply a license, and appellants were entitled to renewal thereof, (b) that appellants had made good investment onto the concerned land, and had their legitimate expectations and consequently, respondents were bound by the doctrine of promissory E estoppel to renew the allotment, and (c) that the decision to change the land-use was a malafide one for benefit of another party - Held: Not tenable - The document of allotment when read in the entirety makes it clear that /DA retained complete control over the concerned land and the manner in which F facilities in the amusement park were to be enjoyed - No exclusive possession was handed over to the appellants - The document merely granted a permission to use the concerned land in a particular manner, without creating any interest therein - Hence, the document was a license, and not G a lease - The provision of renewal contained therein cannot be read as laying down a mandatory requirement - In any event, the license had come to an end by efflux of time and thus cannot be renewed - Besides, respondents had valid reasons not to renew the license - Appellants sought to construct an amusement Club and a Banquet Hall which H 388 MANGAL AMUSEMENT PARK (P) LTD. & ANR. v. 389 STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH would have been used by adults and certainly did not fit in A the purpose of a Children's Amusement Park - Also, necessary action to establish Children's Amusement Park had not been taken since half of the land had remained undeveloped, and it amounted to violating the conditions of license - Doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked B in such a background - Also, appellants had not joined any of those parties for whose benefit the change of land-use had been allegedly made - In absence of factual basis, the court is precluded from going into the plea of malafides. c Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - s. 105 - Lease and license - Distinction between - Held: Lease is not a mere contract but envisages and transfers an interest in the demised property creating a right in favour of the lessee in rem - As against that a license only makes an action lawful D which without it would be unlawful, but does not transfer any interest in favour of the licensee in respect of the property - Indian Easements Act, 1882 - s.52. The Indore Development Authority (IDA) had floated tenders for setting up of an amusement park on a parcel E of land owned by it. Under the then subsisting Development Plan, the designated land-use was 'commercial'. The appellants were allotted the said parcel of land for the establishment of a Children's amusement park and were accordingly granted a license by the IDA. F Later, respondent nos.1 and 2 i.e. the State and the Town Planning Department proposed to change the user of this parcel of land from 'commercial' to 'regional park'. The appellants raised objections against the proposed modification and sought permission for putting up a G banquet hall and an amusement club on the said parcel of land. Vide letter dated 23-9-2003, the State Government declined the permission sought by the appellants and asked IDA to invite tenders afresh for re-allotment of the plot. The State Government also issued notification 19- H 390 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 10 S.C.R. A 11-2003 changing the land-use from 'commercial' to 'regional park'. The appellants filed writ petition challenging the letter dated 23-9-2003 and notification dated 19-11-2003 and 8 raised the following three-fold submissions: (a) the document of allotment of the concerned parcel of land to the appellants was a document of lease and not simply a license, and the appellants were entitled to the renewal thereof, (b) the appellants had made good investment C onto the concerned parcel of land, and they had
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.