2012 (1) TMI 374 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of lease termination by Gwalior Development Authority (GDA).
2. Authority of GDA to lease land not transferred by the State.
3. Applicability of promissory estoppel against the State.

Summary:

Validity of Lease Termination by GDA:
The Supreme Court examined the defensibility of the High Court's judgment, which overturned the Single Judge's decision that upheld the GDA's termination of the lease. The Single Judge had found the termination valid due to the cancellation of the cinema hall's license, while the Division Bench ruled that no notice of termination was given and no breach of lease conditions occurred, thus making the cancellation unsustainable.

Authority of GDA to Lease Land Not Transferred by the State:
The core issue was whether the GDA had the authority to lease the land, which was recorded as 'Nazul' land meant for the Public Works Department and not transferred to the GDA. The Supreme Court emphasized that Nazul land does not automatically vest in any authority without a specific notification by the State Government. The Court found no evidence of such a transfer, rendering the GDA's lease to the Respondent-company invalid and ultra vires.

Applicability of Promissory Estoppel Against the State:
The Division Bench had applied the doctrine of promissory estoppel, arguing that the State was estopped from contesting the lease after thirty years. However, the Supreme Court clarified that promissory estoppel cannot be invoked to enforce a promise or representation that is contrary to law or outside the authority of the public body. The Court cited precedents to establish that estoppel does not apply when the public authority acts beyond its legal power.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's orders and affirming that the GDA had no authority to lease the land. The State Government is entitled to proceed with the eviction of the Respondent, who may seek arbitration for any other relief against the GDA. The judgment underscores the principles of legal authority and public policy in the management of public lands.