MIS. MALWA OIL MILLS AND ANR.versusSTATE OF M.P. AND ORS.

A                    MIS. MALWA OIL MILLS AND ANR.
                                    v.
                          STATE OF M.P. AND ORS.

                                  JULY 25, 1996

B              [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

          M.P. Town Improvement Trust Act, 1960 : Section 71.

          Issue of notification under Section 71 by Improvement Trust for Hous-
e ing Scheme-Subsequently appellant-Mill purchasing the land from erstwhile         •
    owners-Notice issued to the appellant calling upon them to remove sign
    Board put up by appellants-Wiit challenging notice-Dismissal-High Cowt
    held that appellants were not in possession and only sign Board was put up
    in the prope1ty-High Cowt also held that there was no promise made by the
    respondent to convert the Housing sche1ne into 11011-residentia~Ap-
D   peal-Held on issue of notification the right title and illlerest of erstwhile
    owners stood vested in trust free from all encumberances-Sale made by
    erstwhile owne1' to appellants held therefore void-Appellants did not acquire
    any right in property-Question of estoppel does not arise.

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 179 of
E 1981.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 21.11.81 of the Madhya
    Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition No. 44 of 1979.

          A.K. Chitale and Sushi! Kumar Jain for the Appellants.
F
          Niraj Sharma and S.K. Agnihotri for the Respondent Nos. 1-3.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered :

G         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. 44n9. 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
H   admitting that pursuant to a notification issued under Section 71 of the
                                         38
                           MALWAOILMILLS v. STATE                            39

     M.P. Town Improvement Trust Act 1960, a housing scheme was evolved A
     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 appellants' association was requested
     by a letter to have the possession secured from the illegal occupants and
     subsequent thereto industrial scheme was formulated since the mills were
                                                                                   B
     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 them C
     ejected. The High Court has rejected the 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 a direction to remove the sign-board.
     The appellants were in possession of the land and that, therefore, the relief D
     sought for could not be granted. Thus, 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 and, therefore, on the basis of those agree-      E
     ments, 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   F
             under Section 70 the Trust may acquire such land by publishing
             in the Gazette a notice stating that it had decided to acquire the
             land and has obtained the sanction of the State Government for
             the acquisition thereof.
                                                                                   G
             (2) When a notice under sub-section (1) 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 H
    40                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A            in possession of the land to surrender or deliver possession thereof
             to the Trust or any person duly authorised by it in this behalf within
             thirty days of the service of the notice.

             (4) If any person refuses or fails to comply with an order made
             under sub-section (3), the Trust may take possession of the land
B            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
c   divested and the land stood vested in the trust free from all encumbrances.       •
    As a consequence, the previous owners have no right 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 in dispute that the scheme envisaged was for housing purpose.
    Unless the scheme is modified and duly published, no non-residential
D   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
    boarri was put up in the property. Under these circumstances, they did not
    acquire any right to the property.
E
           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 of converting the residential scheme into
F   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.
G         The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.                              <
    T.N.A.                                                      Appeal dismissed.