http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: M/S MALWA OIL MILLS & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF M.P. & ORS,

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       08/07/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B.PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                  THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 1996 Present:           Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.Ramaswamy           Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.B.Pattanaik A.K.Chitale, Sr.Adv. and Sushil Kumar Jain, Adv. with him for the appellants Niraj Sharma and S.K.Agnihotri, Advs. with for the Respondent Nos.1-3                          O R D E R The following Order of the Court was delivered: M/s. Malwa Oil Mills & Anr. V. State of M.P. Ors.                          O R D E R      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment and order  of the  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 shame was evolved and pursuant to  that notification  the land stood vested in the 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 appellant, association was requested by  a letter  to have  the possession secured from the illegal  occupants  and  subsequent  thereto  industrial scheme was   formulated since the mill s 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 then ejected. The High Court has rejected the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

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 direction  to remove  the sign- board. The  appellants were  in possession of land and that, therefore, the relief sought tor could not be granted. This, this appeal by special leave.      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 ands  therefore, on  that 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:      "71.Notification of acquisition and      vesting of Land in trust. (1) after      the   acquisition    of   land   is      sanctioned by  the State Government      under  Section  70  the  Trust  may      acquire such  land by publishing in      the Gazette  a not ice stating that      it had  decided to acquire the land      and has  obtained the  sanction  of      the  State   Government   for   the      acquisition thereof.      (2) When a notice under sub-section      is published  in  the  Gazette  the      land shall, on and from the date of      such publication,  vest  absolutely      in  the   Trust   free   from   all      encumbrances.      (3) Where any land is vested in the      Trust under  sub  section  (2)  the      Trust may  by  notice  in  writing,      order any  person  who  may  be  in      possession of the land to surrender      or deliver  possession  thereof  to      the  Trust   or  any   person  duly      authorized by  it  in  this  behalf      within thirty  days of  the service      of the notice.      (4) If  any person refuses or falls      to comply  with an order made under      section (3),  the  Trust  may  take      possession of  the land and may for      that purpose  cause to be used such      force as may be necessary."      A  reading  thereof  would  clearly  indicate  that  on publication  of  the  notification,  the  right,  title  and interest of the erstwhile owners stood divested and the land stood vested  in the  trust free from all encumbrances. As a consequence, the  previous owners  have no right or title to alienate the  property to  any third party. The sale made to the appellants  in the  aforesaid sale deed, therefore, is a void sale.  It does  not confer any right. It is also not Sn dispute that  the scheme  envisaged was for housing purpose. Unless the  scheme is  modified and  duly published  no non- residential scheme can be brought up. The appellants came to be in possession of the land. It can at best be only illegal possession. The  High Court  gave a categorical finding that the appellants  were not  in possession  and only sign board was put  up in the property. Under these circumstances, they did nut acquire any right to the property.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 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 or 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.      The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No cost.