Estoppel and Waiver: A party that accepts the benefits of a Government Resolution and acts upon it cannot later claim a refund or challenge the legality of the Resolution. (Para 34, 35)

Prospective Application of Judgments: A court’s decision, especially one that is prospective in nature, cannot be used to unsettle concluded transactions or Government policies. (Para 37, 39)

Surplus vs. Retainable Land: The Government Resolution dated 1 August 2019 applies only to surplus land, not retainable land, as held in Porbanderwalla. However, this principle does not apply to cases where the land has already been sold and the transaction is concluded. (Para 36, 40)

The court held that the petitioner was estopped from claiming a refund after accepting the benefits of the Government Resolution and selling the land. (Para 35) The court rejected the petitioner’s reliance on the Porbanderwalla judgment, stating that it did not apply to concluded transactions. (Para 40) The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. (Para 44)

Major Acts:

• Constitution of India (COI), Article 226 – Writ Jurisdiction.

• Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (ULC Act) – Exemption under Section 20(1), Repeal Act of 1999.

• Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 – Section 3 – Effect of Repeal on Exemption Orders.

Subjects:

• Premium Refund – Claim for refund of Rs. 5,30,95,030/- paid under Government Resolution.

• Estoppel – Petitioner estopped from claiming refund after accepting benefits of Government Resolution.

• Waiver of Rights – Petitioner waived legal rights by acting upon Government Resolution.

• Urban Land Ceiling – Exemption under Section 20(1) of ULC Act, 1976.

• Government Resolution – Dated 1 August 2019 and 23 June 2021 – One-time premium for land release.

• Surplus Land vs. Retainable Land – Distinction in premium calculation.

• Prospective Law – Court’s decision in Porbanderwalla case not applicable to concluded transactions.

Facts:

1. Nature of the Litigation: The petitioner, Sudarshan Chemical Industries Ltd., filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a refund of Rs. 5,30,95,030/- paid as premium under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (ULC Act). The petitioner claimed that the premium was wrongly calculated on both surplus and retainable land, contrary to the court’s decision in Salim Alimohomed Porbanderwalla vs. State of Maharashtra.

2. Who is Asking the Court and for What Remedy?: The petitioner, after selling the land to a third party, sought a refund of the premium paid, arguing that the State Government had no authority to charge premium on retainable land.

3. Reason for Filing the Case: The petitioner relied on the Porbanderwalla judgment, which held that the Government Resolution dated 1 August 2019 only applied to surplus land, not retainable land.

4. What Has Already Been Decided Until Now?: The petitioner had already paid the premium, sold the land, and received the sale consideration before filing the petition. The State argued that the petitioner was estopped from claiming a refund after accepting the benefits of the Government Resolution.

Issues:

1. Whether the petitioner is estopped from claiming a refund after accepting the benefits of the Government Resolution and selling the land? (Para 31)

2. Whether the decision in Porbanderwalla can give rise to a cause of action for the petitioner to claim a refund after the land sale? (Para 31)

Submissions/Arguments:

• Petitioner’s Arguments:
  a. The petitioner contended that the premium was wrongly calculated on both surplus and retainable land, contrary to the Porbanderwalla judgment. (Para 3, 14)
  b. The petitioner argued that the State had no authority to charge premium on retainable land and sought a refund of Rs. 5,30,95,030/-. (Para 14)
  c. The petitioner relied on subsequent judgments (Riyaz Ismail Machhiwala, Modern Paints, Jemini Pradip Salot) that followed Porbanderwalla. (Para 18)

• State’s Arguments:
  a. The State argued that the petitioner had accepted the Government Resolution, paid the premium, and sold the land, thus estopped from claiming a refund. (Para 19, 23)
  b. The State contended that the Porbanderwalla judgment was not applicable as the petitioner had already transferred the land. (Para 21)
  c. The State emphasized that the petitioner had waived its rights by acting upon the Government Resolution. (Para 34)