Back
1990 Supreme(Bom) 393
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(NAGPUR BENCH)
M.S. Ratnaparkhi B.U. Wahane, JJ.
Diamond Glass Works Private Limited
through its Managing Director.... Petitioner.
Versus
Nagpur Improvement Trust through its Chairman
through its Managing Director others.... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 327 of 1984, decided on 4-10-1990.
Advocates appeared :
M.L. Vaidya, for the petitioner.
M.P. Badar, for the respondent No. 1.
A.M. Tayade, A.G.P., for respondents 2 3.
P.G. Palshikar, for the interveners.
R.S. Parsodkar, for respondent No. 4.
The doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be enforced against the Government when it owes a duty to the public and is acting in pursuance of that duty.
Headnote:
NAGPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST ACT - SECTION 39 - PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL - DOCTRINE OF PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL - APPLICABILITY AGAINST GOVERNMENT - LIMITATIONS - ZONING REGULATIONS - CONVERSION OF RESIDENTIAL ZONE TO INDUSTRIAL ZONE - PUBLIC DUTY OF IMPROVEMENT TRUST TO MAINTAIN ZONING SANCTITY - CONFLICT BETWEEN CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS AND PUBLIC DUTIES - ENFORCEABILITY OF PROMISE INFRINGING STATUTORY PROVISIONS - RES JUDICATA - LOCUS STANDI - ABANDONMENT OF ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS - FACTUAL FINDINGS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Diamond Glass Works Private Limited, entered into a lease agreement with the original owners of land comprising Khasra Nos. 58 and 64 in Ajani, Nagpur, for the purpose of starting a glass factory. The Nagpur Improvement Trust (NIT) initially rejected the petitioner's application for permission to start the factory due to the land being situated in a "residential zone." However, the NIT later granted permission for raising a structure on the land, subject to a final agreement. The petitioner constructed a structure on the land and applied for a lease of the land from the NIT. The NIT agreed to lease out 25,346 sq. ft. of land to the petitioner for the purpose of the glass factory. However, the NIT continued the land acquisition proceedings, including the disputed land, and issued a notice directing the landowners to deliver possession of the land. The petitioner challenged the acquisition proceedings and sought an injunction restraining the NIT from disturbing its possession of the land. The interveners, who were the original landowners, claimed that the land had already been abandoned by the NIT.
Finding of the Court:
1. The NIT had agreed to lease out 25,346 sq. ft. of land out of Khasra Nos. 58 and 64 to the petitioner for the purpose of a glass factory. 2. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is well-recognized and can be applied against the Government, but it has limitations. 3. The doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be enforced against the Government when it owes a duty to the public and is acting in pursuance of that duty. 4. The NIT has a public duty to maintain the sanctity of zoning regulations and cannot be forced to contravene its legal obligations. 5. The promise made by the NIT to lease out the land for industrial purposes in a residential zone cannot be enforced as it would infringe the statutory provisions and the public duty of the NIT. 6. The dismissal of a previous petition challenging the acquisition proceedings does not bar the present petition on the principle of constructive res judicata as the causes of action, reliefs, and parties are different. 7. The petitioner has locus standi to pursue the petition as it has an interest in the land and is in possession of it. 8. There is no material to substantiate the interveners' plea that the disputed land was abandoned by the NIT during the pendency of the acquisition proceedings.
Issues: 1. Whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel can be applied against the NIT to enforce the promise to lease out the land for industrial purposes in a residential zone. 2. Whether the NIT has a public duty to maintain the sanctity of zoning regulations and cannot be forced to contravene its legal obligations. 3. Whether the dismissal of a previous petition challenging the acquisition proceedings bars the present petition on the principle of constructive res judicata. 4. Whether the petitioner has locus standi to pursue the petition.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The doctrine of promissory estoppel can be applied against the Government, but it has limitations. 2. The doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be enforced against the Government when it owes a duty to the public and is acting in pursuance of that duty. 3. The NIT has a public duty to maintain the sanctity of zoning regulations and cannot be forced to contravene its legal obligations. 4. The promise made by the NIT to lease out the land for industrial purposes in a residential zone cannot be enforced as it would infringe the statutory provisions and the public duty of the NIT.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as the doctrine of promissory estoppel could not be enforced against the NIT due to its public duty to maintain the sanctity of zoning regulations.
2. The facts giving rise to this litigation may be briefly stated as follows: The lands comprising of Khgasra Nos. 58 and 64 of Ajani, along with some other lands belonged to the interveners. They leased out the land to the petitioner (Diamond Glass Works Private Limited, Nagpur) by a lease deed dated 15-6-1970 with effect from 1-7-1970. The lease deed is still continuing. The petitioner, on execution of the lease deed, applied to the respondent No. 1-Nagpur Improvement Trust-for permission to start the glass factory on the leased land, this application came to be rejected by the respondent No. 1 on 13th July, 1970-Annexure-2. The petitioner again applied for necessary permission to raise a structure on that land on 22-7-1970 and the Nagpur Improvement Trust sanctioned that proposal.
3. This land along with some other lands were already under acquisition and these acquisition proceedings were initiated sometimes in 1969. The first application maked by the petitioner for permission to start the glass factory was rejected by the respondent No. 1 on 13th July, 1970 on the ground that the land was situated in "residential Zone" and not in 'industrial zone'. However, when the petitioner applied again for permission to raise a structure and when that permission was granted, it meant that the land was dropped from acquisition and it was allotted by the Nagpur Improvement Trust for starting the glass factory. In pursuance of this sanction, the petitioner raised the structure spending Rs. 80,000/- in 1972. These structures are standing on the land for more than 12 years. On or about 4-10-1971, an agreement came to be prepared whereunder the land was agreed to be leased out to the petitioner-company by the respondent No. 1. The land admeasuring 29,166 sq. ft. from Khasra Nos. 58 and 64 was under acquisition. As per the terms of the agreement, the petitioner company was required to pay the amount equal compensation to be fixed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, plus 50 percent of that amount to the respondent-Trust and the respondent-Trust was to grant the lease of the said land admeasuring 25,346 sq. ft. on usual ground-rent at 2 percent. The petitioner-company was always willing to abide by all the terms of the contract and is still ready and willing to abide by the terms. From time to time there was a correspondence between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 and the latter showed its willingness to lease out this piece of land to the petitioner-company. Since there was a delay in execution of the agreement, the petitioner wrote to the Government of Maharashtra and the Under Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, by his letter dated 13-10-1972 informed the petitioner-company that the respondent No. 1 consented to lease out 25,346 sq. ft. of land in Khasra Nos. 58 and 64 for glass factory.
4. Inspite of the agreement, the respondent No. 1 continued the land acquisition proceedings including this land (which was the subject-matter of lease for the p
