Back
High Court of Judicature at Bombay
NARESH H. PATIL & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ.
Pandurang Tukaram Kamble
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Others
Writ Petition Nos. 1834 of 1996 & 1763 of 2006
Decided On : 23-12-2014
However, the public authority concerned cannot be compelled to something which is contrary to law, not allowed by law or prohibited by law. The equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked in case the authority concerned acted against the statute because no one can be compelled to act in a manner which is contrary to law.
In the present cae, there is no concrete, reliable material placed on the record so as to establish that a definite representation or promise by the Government for allotment of certain piece of land to the petitioner’s registered housing society with certain number of members as " Mathadi Kamgar " (Manual labourers) on it’s roll form and that the petitioner’s co-operative housing society acted upon the definite promise, altered it’s position in such a manner, suffering the prejudice so as to constitute the acceptable plea of the promissory estoppel.
Necessary factual foundation to press the principle of promissory estoppel is thus unfortunately lacking. An individual cannot insist upon the public authority or Government to transfer an immovable property to him unless the promise made is specific, definite with certain intent creating a legal or equitable right upon the premise of ’promissory estoppel’.
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - Section 40 Allotment of land. - In matters of allotment of land to any person, Government cannot act like an unrestricted private individual in awarding State largess. - In the matters of allotment of immovable property to any person, Government can not act like an unrestricted private individual in exercise of it’s power in awarding it’s highly valuable assets i.e. State largess. State Government need to bear in mind the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and relevant Statutes, Rules and Regulations to observe formalities of law required to create transfer/grant of immovable property.
State cannot act in such a manner to allow or plunder away its immovable property to enable opportunist land grabbers and tax dodgers to loot away valuable immovable assets/property belonging to the State. In case the State Government intended to create grant of lease as contemplated under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, it was necessary for the State Government to carve a lay out of the land specified for the purpose of housing for the poor Mathadi Kamgars, consistent to the development plan intended in the area, to be prepared and approved by the planning authority, public notice was required to be published, if land is to be allotted by adopting a lottery system or draw of lots amongst beneficiaries/persons who may apply for allotment of the Government land. Requisite formalities to complete the grant or transfer of valuable immovable property according to law are essential.
A.P. BHANGALE, J.
1. Heard submissions at the bar. Perused copies of documents including affidavits relied upon by the parties.
2. By Writ Petition No. 1834 of 1996, the Petitioner prayed that respondents No. 1 and 2 be directed to allot and hand over the piece of land ad measuring 2.5 Acres out of Survey Nos. 357 and 376 situated at Chembur, Mumbai. It must be noted that this writ Petition was disposed of earlier by an order dated 05-11-1996 by a Single Judge of this Court. The order was challenged in Appeal No. 757 of 1997 decided on 09-02-2004 by Division Bench of this Court, whereby it was restored for hearing and disposal afresh in accordance with law.
3. The Petitioner claimed as the Chief Promoter of the proposed Co-operative Housing Society Sarnath Magasvargiya Sahakari Griha Nirman Sanstha. He claimed allotment of the plot of land from the respondent State of Maharashtra on the ground that his application was bypassed and the application by the respondent No. 3 Society was considered. It is case of the Petitioner that Petitioner's society was established on 14-04-1981 and the Petitioner made an application dated 02-02-1983 to the Additional Collector, Old Customs House Bombay for allotment of an open plot of land. During the period between the year 1983 to 1988 lot of correspondence took place between the Petitioner and the respondents as the Petitioner had requested for allotment of the land survey Nos. 357 and 376 situated at Chembur. On 25-03-1988, the Petitioner came to know from the news item in Marathi news paper Navakal that the Government has decided to allot 42 acres of immovable property including survey Nos. 337 and 370 to respondent No. 3 Society. The petitioner had filed Writ Petition 2332 of 1988. At that time the respondents No. 1 and 2 pointed out that they were actively considering the allotment of Survey No. 90 at Mulund to the petitioner's Society. As a result the said Writ Petition was dismissed. The Petitioner filed an appeal against the said order being Appeal No. 15 of 1989. By interim order dated 16th October, 1989 in Appeal No. 1153 of 1989 in Writ Petition 2332 of 1998, dismissed earlier was restored to the file. When appeal came up, Division Bench noted that no steps whatsoever had been taken and in fact there had been no active consideration qua the appellant at any stage. According to the Petitioner the appeal was settled between the respondent no. 3 and the Petitioner and 180 members of the Petitioner were to be absorbed in the society of the respondent No. 3 Society, by allotting 2.5 Acres of land separately and this fact was recorded in the minutes of the meeting between the Petitioner and the society of Respondent No. 3. On 26-08-1993, the order was passed by Justice A.V. Savant directing the respondent No. 1 State to consider the proposal of the Petitioner and the respondent No. 3 Society. On 30-11-1993, Justice B.P. Saraf directed the respondent No. 1 State to consider the new names of the Petitioner's Society expeditiously. 180 names were submitted by the Petitioner as members of the Petitioner's Society. On 15-09-1994, respondent No. 3 Society was not willing to absorb members of the Petitioner though earlier shown willingness to hand over possession of 2.5 Acres of land to the Petitioner's Society.
4. On 30-08-1996 Justice Mr. A.P. Shah held that no relief could be granted on the notice of Motion and the Petitioner was required to file a substantive petition. Hence Notice of Motion was withdrawn. Thus Writ Petition No. 1834 of 1996 was filed.
5. By another Writ Petition No. 1763 of 2006, the Petitioner prayed for to quash and set aside the allotment order bearing No. LCS2696/308 Case No. 6544/J-3 dated 21-01-2006 granting the land ad measuring 62 acres at Chembur, Wadala and Anik to the respondent No. 3, Mathadi Kamgar Sahakari Griha Nirman Sanstha. The Petitioner prayed that the respondents No. 1 and 2 be directed to allow the applications made by the Petitioner dated
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
