TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 830X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nered from the materials on record, indicate that the CIDCO had issued a letter of allotment of a commercial plot measuring 1453.75 sq. mts. on lease in plot No. 1 in Sector 9, Panvel (West), Navi Mumbai, for a period of 60 years for a premium of Rs. 2,12,24,750/- in favour of Mrs. Meera Balkrishna Dhumale and Mrs. Neeta Hemant Patankar jointly. The original allottees applied for transfer of the said plot to the appellants herein. Upon accepting the transfer charges of Rs. 2 lacs, CIDCO issued a corrigendum to the original allotment letter dated 5th February, 2004 and executed a Deed of Lease in favour of the appellants on receipt of the full lease premium of Rs. 2,12,24,750/-. CIDCO also executed a Deed of Confirmation in favour of the appellants and issued the Development Permission and Commencement Certificate in terms of Section 45 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 ( for short 'the MRTP Act'). 4. On the basis of the above, the appellants commenced the construction work and proceeded up to the 1st floor and also completed the construction of the underground water tank. However, on 19thJuly, 2005, CIDCO issued a Show Cause Notice to the appellants to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o revalue the plots allotted and in the event the valuation was found to be higher, for a direction upon the allottees to pay the balance to CIDCO on account of the fact that the construction work had reached an irreversible stage. 7. Mr. Cama submitted that in the instant case, there was no such prayer and it was the appellants herein who had. challenged the cancellation of their allotment by CIDCO in terms of its order dated 29thMarch, 2006 purportedly on account of violation of the provisions of Section 23 of the Contract Act. According to Mr. Cama, the only question to be decided in this appeal is whether having accepted the entire premium lease from the appellants as also the transfer fees from the original allottees and having issued Sanction and Commencement Certificate, CIDCO was entitled to resile from its original actions and to cancel the allotment unilaterally on the ground of violation by CIDCO itself of its own Regulations which attracted the provisions of Section 23 of the Contract Act. It was urged that since the appellants had substantially altered their position to their prejudice on the assurances held out by CIDCO by investing huge amounts on the development ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lying upon the representations as to its future conduct made by the Government. This Court held that the following observations made by Denning, J., in Robertson v. Minister of Pensions (1949) 1 KB 227, applied in India: The Crown cannot escape by saying that estoppels do not bind the Crown for that doctrine has long been exploded. Nor can the Crown escape by praying in aid the doctrine of executive necessity, that is, the doctrine that the Crown cannot bind itself so as to fetter its future executive action. We are in this case not concerned to deal with the question whether Denning L.J., was right in extending the rule to a different class of cases as in Falmouth Boat Construction Co. Ltd. v. Howell (1950) 1 All ER 538 where he observed at p. 542: Whenever Government officers in their dealings with a subject take on themselves to assume authority in a matter with which the subject is concerned, he is entitled to rely on their having the authority which they assume. He does not know, and cannot be expected to know, the limits of their authority, and he ought not to suffer if they exceed it. It may be sufficient to observe that in appeal from that judgment (Howell v. Fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing Society Limited (supra). It was not, therefore, available to CIDCO to contend that the allotment could not have been made on the basis of an individual application and that the same was void on account of the fact that no public auction had been held in connection with such allotment. 14. Mr. Cama also submitted that the availability of an alternate remedy which was less efficacious than a writ petition, did not absolutely bar the filing of a writ petition and even on such ground the impugned order of the High Court was liable to be set aside, particularly when the writ petition had been admitted and the parties had completed their pleadings. Mr. Cama submitted that the subject-matter of the instant appeal being different from those decided earlier by this Court, there was no reason for the appeal to be remitted back to the High Court since the only question involved in the instant appeal was whether the allotment made was at all void in terms of Section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872 and also whether CIDCO acted within its jurisdiction in cancelling such allotment unilaterally. 15. Appearing for CIDCO, Mr. Altaf Ahmed, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that certain other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts, which could have merited an order of remand. 19. On the legal question, it is quite obvious that having acted and held out assurances to the appellants which caused the appellants to alter their position to their prejudice, it was not open to CIDCO to lake a unilateral decision to cancel the allotment on the ground that it had acted without jurisdiction and/or in excess of jurisdiction and in violation of its rules and regulations. Even on that score, the argument advanced on behalf of CIDCO is unacceptable having regard to Regulation 4 of the New Bombay Disposal of Land Regulations, 1975 extracted hereinabove which empowered CIDCO to dispose of plots of land even on the basis of individual applications. The said aspect of the matter has been dealt with in detail in Civil Appeal Nos. 408/07 and 410/07 referred to herein above. 20. On the question of the allotment being opposed to public policy, we failed to see how CIDCO can raise such an issue. On the other hand, the stand taken by CIDCO is in our view, opposed to public policy since CIDCO was not entitled to take a unilateral decision, to cancel the allotment after the appellants had acted on the basis thereof and ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
