THE COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF CHENNAIversusR. SIVASANKARA MEHTA AND ANOTHER

                  [2011] 5 S.C.R. 243


  THE COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF CHENNAI                 A
                           v.
       R. SIVASANKARA MEHTA AND ANOTHER
         (Civil Appeal No(s). 5740-5741 of 2005)
                     APRIL 13, 2011
                                                           B
           [ASHOK KUMAR GANGULY AND
              SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.]

    LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894:
                                                           c
      s.48, and s.48-8 (as inserted by Land Acquisition (Tamil
Nadu Amendment) Act, 1996 - Release of acquired land -
Land acquired in 1949 and transferred to Municipal
Corporation - Government, by order dated 19.3.1995,
directing reconveyance of a portion of the land to land-owners 0
- However, subsequently, by order dated 25. 7. 1995, the order
dated 10. 3. 1995 cancelled - Writ petition of land owners
allowed by High Court - HELD: When the order of re-
conveyance was made on 10.3.1995, s.48 of the Act was
holding the field - Under the provisions of s.48 the land-
owners had no right of asking for re-conveyance in ·1995 as E .
the possession had been taken in 1949 and land vested in
Government in 1962 - Further, the Government divested itself
by giving the land over to the Corporation - So, exercise of
power by Government in cancelling the previous
reconveyance cannot be faulted. - Section 48-8 is not F
retrospective in operation - Even before making release of
land uls 48-8, Government must be satisfied that the land is
not required for any public purpose - Corporation needs the
land for parking space, which is certainly a public purpose -
 In view of clear provisions of s.48, there is no question of G
promissory estoppel which is an equitable doctrine and has
no application to the facts of the case - Promissory estoppel
- Equity.

                          243                               H
                 -·
    244       SUPREME COURT REPORTS          [2011) 5 S.C.R


A      Lands of the respondents were acquired pursuant
  to notification dated 3.1.1949 issued under the Land
  Acquisition Act, 1894. On getting the enhanced
  compensation in reference proceedings, the land owners
  did not take the matter further. The lands acquired vested
B in the State u/s 16 in 1962. In 1995 the respondents made
  a representation for release/reconveyance of a portion
  of the land, inter alia, on the ground that the appellant-
  Corporation was not utilising the same. The Government
  by its order dated 10-3-1995 directed the Corporation to
c reconvey a portion of the lands admeasuring 5 grounds
  and 416 sq. ft. to the land owners or their legal heirs or
  nominees under ex-owner category. The Corporation
  made a representation to the Government for utilization
  of the said land as parking space. Accordingly, the
  Government by order dated 25-7-1995 cancelled the order
0
  of reconveyance passed on 10-3-1995. The writ petitions
  filed by the respondents challenging the order were
  allowed by the Single Judge of the High Court. The
  Division Branch of the High Court referred to the
  provisions of s.48-8 which was introduced by the Land
E Acquisition (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act 1996, and
  declined to interfere. Aggrieved, the Corporation filed the
  appeals.
          Allowing the appeals, the Court
F
       HELD: 1.1 Admittedly, s. 48-B came on the statute
  book in 1997 by the Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu
  Amendment) Act, 1996 (being Act 16of1997). The assent
  of the President to the said Act was received on 14.3.1997.
G On perusal of s. 48-8, it is clear that the same is not
  retrospective in operation. The said provision, which is
  a departure from s. 48 can apply only prospectively. [para
  7 and 8) [249-F-G; 250-B]
          Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. Keeravani Ammal and
H
    COMMNR., CORPORATION OF CHENNAI v. R.              245
             SIVASANKARA MEHTA
Ors., 2007 (3) SCR 1062 =AIR 2007 SC 1691 - referred          A
to.                                             ·

    1.2 Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was
holding the field when re-conveyance was purportedly
ordered by the State Government by its order dated 10-        B
3-1995. Under the provisions of s. 48 of the principal Act,
the respondent(s) had no right of asking for re-
conveyance in 1995 in as much as it was the admitted
case of the parties that possession of the property had
been taken over by the State as early as in 1949 when         c
the Award was passed and the land vested in the State
Government in 1962. Thereafter it was transferred to the
Corporation. This aspect of the case, which goes to the
root of the question, was totally missed by the High
Court. (para 11-12] (250-E; 251-C-D]                          o
     1.3 Even assuming, that s. 48-B was available in 1995
when re-conveyance was ordered, even then the
respondent(s) has no case. In a recent judgment
rendered by this Court in L. Chandrase.karan's case*, it E
has been held that before an order of release can be made
u/s 48-B, the Government must be satisfied that the land
which is sought to be released is not required for the
purpose for which it was acquired or for any public
purpose. Admittedly, in the instant case, such condition F
has not been satisfied in view of the representation of
the appellant-Corporation that they need the land for
utilising it as parking space in view of ever increasing
growth of car population in the city of Chennai. This is
certainly a public purpose. An affidavit has been filed on G
behalf of the Metro Rail to the effect that the Government
is contemplating the use of the said land for its ongoing
project which is again, very much a public purpose. [para
13-16] [251-D-H; 252-A]
                                                              H
    246     SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2011] 5 S.C.R.


A       *Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. L. Chandrasekaran
    (Dead) by Lrs. and Others., 2010 (2) sec 786 - relied on.

      1.4 Further, the land is no longer vested in the
  Government as it divested itself by giving it over to the
8 Corporation. Therefore, the conditions stated in L.
  Chandrasekaran are not satisfied in the instant case. So,
  the exercise of power by the State Government in
  cancelling its previous order of re-conveyance cannot
  be faulted. [para 17] [252-B]
c       1.5 Besides, in L. Chandrasekaran, this Court held
    that if any re-conveyance is to be made that has to be
    done on the basis of the market value. The purported
    order of re-conveyance initially made by the Government
    was not made on that basis either. [para 20] (253-A-B]
0
       1.6 No case of malafide or perversity has been made
  out in the writ petitions. Specific pleadings with
  particulars must be there to make out a case of malafide
  and the person against whom malafide is alleged must
E be impleaded. No such pleadings are at all present in
  this case. [para 18-19] [252-C; G-H]
       1.7 In the facts of the case, there can be no question
  of promissory estoppel which is an equitable doctrine.
F In the context of the clear provision of s. 48 of the
  principal Act which was governing the field in 1995, when
  re-conveyance was purportedly ordered, equity has no
  application. Nor is there any scope for principle of natural
  justice to operate when the person complaining of its
G infraction cannot show any right of his which has been
  violated. In the given facts of the case and the clear
  mandate of s. 48 of the principal Act, no right of the
  landowners can be discerned to apply for re-conveyance_
  in respect of a land which had vested in the Government
H long ago. [para 21] [253-B-D]
    COMMNR., CORPORATION OF CHENNAI v. R.                  247
             SIVASANKARA MEHTA
    1.8 There is no reason to sustain the impugned                A
judgment passed by the High Court and the same is set
aside. [para 22-23] [253-E-F]
                     Case Law Reference:
    2007 (3) SCR 1062         referred to           Para 10       B

    2010 (2) sec 786          relied on             Para 14
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
5740-5741 of 2005.
                                                                  c
     From the Judgment and Order dated 18.1.2005 of the
Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ
Appeal No. 2485 and 2487 of 1999.

    K. Ramaurthy, Promila and S. Thananjayan for the
                                                                  0
Appellant.

     Dhruv Mehta and R. Balasubramanina, E.C. Agrawala,
P.B. Suresh, Vipin Nair, Vivek Sharma; Sriram Krishna (for
Temple Law Firm), V. Ramajagdeesan, Karunakaran and
Senthil Jagadeesan (for Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co.) for the         E
Respondents.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     GANGULY, J. 1. We have heard learned counsel for the
parties including the learned senior counsel appearing for        F
Chennai Metro Rail Limited. The Interlocutory AppHcation Nos.
5-6 filed on behalf of the Chennai Metro Rail Limited for being
impleaded are allowed.

     2. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Chennai        G
is in appeal before us, impugning the judgment and order
passed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court dated
18.1.2005, whereby the learned Judges of the Division Bench
affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge dated 24th
September, 1999 on two writ petitions filed by the land owners    H
    248       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011) 5 S.C.R.


A who are respondent(s) herein. The facts leading to this case
  are that by notification dated 3rd January, 1949 an Award was
  passed by the Special Secretary for Land Acquisition, Madras
  in respect of the land which was acquired under the provisions
  of the Land Acquisition Act. It is not in dispute that reference
B proceedings were initiated in 1949 itself and upon getting the
  enhanced compensation, the land owners did not take the
  challenge any further. Under Section 16 of the Act, the land
  acquired, vested in the State in 1962, free from all
  encumbrances. Long thereafter, in 1995 representation was
c made by the respondent(s) herein for release/re-conveyance
  of a portion of the land which was acquired in 1949 inter alia
  on the ground that the appellant-Corporation was not utilising
  the same.

        3. On such a representation, the Government by an Order
D dated 10th March, 1995 directed the appellant-Corporation to
  re-convey a portion of the lands measuring 5 grounds and 416
  sq. ft. in R.S. No.324/2 to Thiruvalargal R. Neelakanta Mehta
  and R. Sivasankara Mehta and to their legal heirs or their
  nominees under ex-owner category, on collection of the
E compensation amount paid by the government for the
  acquisition of lands measuring 5 grounds and 416 sq. ft. in
  R.S. No. 324/2 with interest after completing all formalities. After
  the said order was passed, a representation was made by the
  appellant-Corporation to the Secretary, Government of Tamil
F Nadu, M.A. and W.S. Department to the effect that the said
  area can be better utilised for the purpose of parking of vehicles
  in view of manifold increase in traffic in that part of the city. A
  request was, therefore, made to stay the operation of the
  notification relating to re-conveyance for consideration of the
G request of the Corporation.

         4. Upon such representation from the appellant-
    Corporation, the Government of Tamil Nadu by an Order dated
    25th July, 1995 cancelled the order of re-conveyance issued
    in G.O. Ms. No.45, M.A. & W.S. dated 10th March, 1995.
H
    COMMNR., CORPORATION OF CHENNAI v. R.                     249
 SIVASANKARA MEHTA [ASHOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
     5. This order of 25th July, 1995 was impugned by the             A
respondent(s) herein by filing two writ petitions. The learned
Single Judge allowed the writ petitions inter alia on the ground
that the Government is bound by provisions of promissory
estoppel and also by reason of the fact that the order of
cancellation of re-conveyance was passed without affording            B
any opportunity of hearing to the land owners. The said decision
of the learned Single Judge was challenged by the present
appellant before the Division Bench of the High Court. The
Division Bench of the High Court, in paragraph 17 of its
judgment quoted from the judgment of the learned Single Judge         c
and in paragraph 19 of the judgment quoted the provisions of
Section 48-B which was introduced by Tamil Nadu Amendment
Act, 1996 (Act 16of1996). Ultimately, the Division Bench held
that the decision of the Government in rescinding its initial order
of re-conveyance is bad. The Division Bench was not,                  D
therefore, inclined to interfere with the order passed by the
learned Single Judge and dismissed the appeal of the
Corporation and affirmed the decision of the learned Single
Judge.

      6. Assailing both these judgments, learned senior counsel · E
for the appellant urged various contentions before us. The first
question which was urged before us was that at the time when
the exercise was made by the Government for re-conveyance,
Section 48-B was not in existence.
                                                                      F
     7. Admittedly, Section 48-B came on the statute book in
1997 by the Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act,
1996 (being Act 16 of 1997). The assent of the President to
the said Act was received on 14th March, 1997.

     8. Section 48-B runs as follows:-                                G

     "48-8. Transfer of land to original owner in certain cases.-
     Where the Government are satisfied that the land vested
     in the Government under this Act is not required for the
     purpose for which it was acquired, or for any_ other public      H
    250        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 5 S.C.R.


A         purpose, the Government may transfer such land to the
          original owner who is willing to repay the amount paid to
          him under this Act for the acquisition of such land inclusive
          of the amount referred to in sub-section (1-A) and (2) of
          Section 23, if any, paid under this Act."
B
         9. On perusal of Section 48-8 it is clear that the same is
    not retrospective in operation. The said provision, which is a
    departure from Section 48 can apply only prospectively.

       10. This Court also considered the purport of that provision
C in Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. Keeravani Ammal and Ors.,
  reported in AIR 2007 SC 1691. The learned Judges in
  paragraph 11 of Keeravani Ammal (supra) held as follows:-

          "Section 48-8 introduced into the Act in the State of Tamil
D         Nadu is an exception to this rule. Such a provision has to
          be strictly construed and strict compliance with its terms
          insisted upon. Whether such a provision can be challenged
          for its validity, we are not called upon to decide here."

       11. In this connection, it is necessary to have a look at
E provisions of Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894;
  which was holding the field in 1995, when re-conveyance was
  purportedly ordered by the State Government vide its order
  dated 10.3.1995. Section 48 of the Act is set out below:

F         "48. Completion of acquisition not compulsory, but
          compensation to be awarded when not completed.- (1)
          Except in the case provided for in section 36, the
          Government shall be at liberty to withdraw from the
          acquisition of any land of which possession has not been
G         taken.

                (2) Whenever the Government withdraws from any
          such acquisition, the Collector shall determine the amount
          of compensation due for the damage suffered by the owner
          in consequence of the notice or of any proceedings
H
    COMMNR., CORPORATION OF CHENNAI v. R.                    251
 SIVASANKARA MEHTA [ASHOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
    thereunder, and shall pay such amount to the person             A
    interested, together with all costs reasonably incurred by
    him in the prosecution of the proceedings under this Act
    relating to the said land.

          (3) The provisions of Part Ill of this Act shall apply,   8
    so far as may be, to the determination of the compensation
    payable under this section."

     12. Under the provisions of Section 48 of the principal
Act, we are afraid, the respondent(s) has no right of asking for
re-conveyance in 1995 inasmuch as it is an admitted case of         C
the parties that possession of the property was taken over by
the State as early as in 1949 when the Award was passed
and the land vested in the State Government in.1962.
Thereafter it was transferred·to the Corporation. This aspect
of the case, which goes to the root of the question, was totally    D
missed by the High Court.

    13. Even if we accept, for the sake of argument, that
Section 48-B was available in 1995 when re-conveyance was
ordered even then the respondent(s) has no case.
                                                                    E
     14. In a recent judgment rendered by this Court in the case
of Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. L. Chandrasekaran (Dead)
by Lrs. and Others reported in 2010 (2) SCC 786, it has been
held that before an order of release can be made under Section
48-8, the Government must be satisfied that the land which is       F
sought to be released is not required for the purpose for which
it was acquired or for any public purpose.

     15. Admittedly, in the instant case such condition has not
satisfied in view of the representation of the appellant-           G
Corporation that they need the land for utilising it as parking
space in view of ever increasing growth of car population in
the city of Chennai. This is certainly a public purpose.

     16. The learned Counsel for the Metro Rail has filed an
                                                                    H
    252        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 5 S.C.R.

A   affidavit to the effect that the Government is contemplating the
    use of the said land for its ongoing project which is again, very
    much a public purpose.

         17. The second question is that the land is no longer vested
    in the Government as it divested itself by giving it over to the
8
    Corporation. Therefore, the conditions stated in L.
    Chandrasekaran (supra) are not satisfied herein. So the
    exercise of power by the State Government in cancelling its
    previous order of re-conveyance cannot be faulted.

C         18. No case of malafide or perversity has been made out
    in the writ petitions. The learned counsel for the respondent(s)
    stated that its only case of alleged malafide has been made
    out in ground (c) at page 35 of the paper book. The said ground
    is set out herein below:-
D
          "Cancellation of reconveyance order is colourable exercise
          of power. All materials have been considered including
          the views of the Corporations in detail in G.O. Ms. No. 48
          dated 10.3.1995. Corporation stated that there is a
          proposal to construct fully air conditioned office cum
E
          shopping complex. However, Government has rejected the
          proposal and ordered reconveyance. As per the impugned
          order, Corporations has given a proposal for using it as
          parking space. It is submitted that above proposal is dated
          5:6.1998, long after Bankers pay order has been received
F         from the petitioner. It is submitted that facts set out above
          make it very clear that impugned order is based on
          extraneous considerations and purely colourable exercise
          of power."

G         19. Unfortunately we are of the opinion that the said ground
  does not make out any case of malafide exercise of power by
  the Government. Specific pleadings with particulars must be
  there to make out a case of malafide and the person against
  whom malafide is alleged must be impleaded. No such
H pleadings are at all present in this case.
    COMMNR., CORPORATION OF CHENNAI v. R.                   253
 SIVASANKARA MEHTA [ASHOK KUMJ\R GANGULY, J.]
      20. Apart from the aforesaid question, in L.                  A
Chandrasekaran (supra), this Court held that if any re-
conveyance is to be made that has to be done on the basis of
the present market value. The purported order of re-conveyance
initially made by the Government was not made on that basis
either.                                                             B

     21. In the facts of this case there can be no question of
promissory estoppel which is an equitable doctrine. In the
context of the clear provision of Section 48 of the principal Act
which was governing its field in 1995, when re-conveyance was       C
purportedly ordered, equity has no application. Nor is there
any scope for principle of natural justice to operate when the
person complaining of its infraction cannot show any right of
his which has been violated. In the given facts of the case and
the clear mandate of Section 48 of the principal Act, we do
not discern any right of the landowners to apply for re-            D
conveyance in respect of a land which had vested in the
Government long ago.

    22. Therefore, examining the matter from all its angles,
we do not find any reason to sustain the impugned judgment          E
passed by the High Court.

    23. The appeals are, therefore, allowed. The judgment of
the High Court is set aside.

       24. No order as to costs.                                    F

R.P.                                          Appeals allowed.