Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. Further, the submissions, which have been made by learned advocate, Shri Mehul Sharad Shah that estoppel would apply against the State, is misconceived as there cannot be any estoppel against the Legislation. If permission of the petitioner is not challenged qua particular transaction in past would not justify the subsequent transaction without any prior permission as per the statutory provision of Section 63 of the Tenancy Act. Therefore, the submission that the permission of the petitioner which has not been challenged and, therefore, transaction cannot be questioned, is thoroughly misconceived. As stated above, permission is required for each transaction separately at the C/SCA/8808/2018 JUDGMENT relevant time and the permission granted for one transaction in past cannot be assumed to be valid giving sort of license for all time to come for entering into such transaction for the purchase of agricultural land. If that submission is accepted, it will have effect of negating the provision of Section 63 of the Tenancy Act. Again the submission made on the basis of the estoppel and legitimate expectation are therefore devoid of merits. There is no question of any legitimate expectation inasmuch as there was nothing, which can be said to have been promised or held out by the State, on the basis of which, one could expect with legitimate expectation. The concept of legitimate expectation has no application in the background of the facts at all and the submissions made are devoid of merits.

21. Moreover as discussed above, learned advocate, Shri Mehul Sharad Shah has tried to submit that there is delay in filing the proceeding by the State and the State is estopped from challenging or raising the issue on the ground of principle of promissory estoppel or legitimate expectation. As stated above, these principles are not attracted at all. It is required to be stated that earlier proceeding qua one permission would have remained valid and it cannot be clubbed for the purpose of subsequent transaction and subsequent policy or the Circular. Therefore when fresh permission has C/SCA/8808/2018 JUDGMENT not been granted and the person like respondents have proceeded further insptie of the knowledge of pending proceeding before the Hon'ble High Court, the transaction would be its own peril and such submission on the ground of promissory estoppel or legitimate expectation, are misconceived. In fact, the person like the respondents, who were very much aware about the proceeding pending before the Hon'ble Division Bench regarding the same issue, could not have taken it for granted and then, raised an issue like promissory estoppel or delay.

C/SCA/8808/2018 JUDGMENT

24. Though the submissions have been made by learned advocate, Shri Mehul Sharad Shah referring to the doctrine of promissory estoppel and also legitimate expectation, same are devoid of merits. It is well accepted that before such doctrine could be invoked, it has to be established about any premise, on the basis of which, a party can expect in terms of legitimate expectation from the authority. However as stated above, there is no promise held out to the petitioner nor there is any premises for legitimate expectation. The transaction of purchase of non­agricultural land by the petitioner or some Company cannot be a ground to invoke promissory estoppel or legitimate expectation. The statutory provision of the Tenancy Act obliges for prior approval for each transaction. Therefore, permission/ prior approval has to be taken at the time of each transaction. The relevant facts would reveal that earlier transaction on the basis of the Circular of the year 1983, cannot be relied upon for all time to come irrespective of change in the policy. As stated above, whole premises is built up on the C/SCA/8808/2018 JUDGMENT ground that the Company had purchased agricultural land at Sanand in the year 1987, for which, the Mamlatdar, Sanand had certified and granted approval. It was a subject matter of further proceedings but if in that particular case, the order was not carried further, it would rest there qua particular transaction. In the facts of the case, when the purchase of the agricultural land is made at Dholka, the provision of the Tenancy Act and particularly, Section 63 of the Tenancy Act would require prior approval. Admittedly, there is no such prior approval and the transactions have taken place in or about in November, 2009 as reflected from the order at Annexure­C. The proceedings had started within a period of three years. The Circular of the Revenue Department, State of Gujarat dated 23.11.1998 clearly provides that the purchase of the agricultural land by body corporate with speculative interest deserves to be curbed. It also provides that the definition of "agriculturist" would not cover the Company or a juristic person. Thus such Circular of the year C/SCA/8808/2018 JUDGMENT 1998 has been further clarified vide another Circular dated 02.05.2011. The transactions, for which, the present group of petitions have been filed, are all related to year 2009 and 2011. The order at Annexure­C also refers to the fact about the purchase of agricultural land at Sanand, which is a separate and independent transaction, for which, reliance cannot be made for subsequent transaction much later in the year 2009. There appears to be a deliberate attempt to club these two separate issues and the transactions only to make out a case for the ground of estoppel. It is in this background, the doctrine of estoppel will not have any application. Again it is well accepted that there cannot be a bar against the statute or the legislation and when there is an amendment in the statute by way of even delegated legislation in the form of Resolution or the Circular, it will have force of law and legislature or the Government in exercise of legislative function is within the rights to have further clarification to give effect to the ultimate underlying purpose and the object of the C/SCA/8808/2018 JUDGMENT statute like Tenancy Act. Therefore, when the attempts were made to frustrate very object and purpose of the Tenancy Act to protect the land in favour of the agriculturist and to prevent any kind of abuse, by which, they are deprived of their land, suitable measures could be taken. Moreover, there cannot be any estoppel against the legislature or even legislative function of the State when it is made operative prospectively.

26. It is required to be stated that learned advocate for the respondent has emphasized on the estoppel C/SCA/8808/2018 JUDGMENT and legitimate expectation without any basis or foundation. It is claimed that they had purchased the land at Sanand. However as it is reflected in detail from the affidavit filed by the respondent no.2, the land was sold by the respondent - Company in 1997 and they had divested of any agricultural land. Therefore, there is no justification to claim on the basis of such agricultural land for the purchase of agricultural land in the year 2009. Further once the land itself has been transferred and sold away, the submission about the doctrine of promissory estoppel or having altered possession or prejudice, are without any basis as the land purchased at Sanand itself was sold away in 1997. Therefore also, the doctrine of promissory estoppel or legitimate expectation would not have any application.