Petitions decided by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, questioning whether a Build, Operate & Transfer (BOT) Scheme agreement, where the right to collect tolls is given in lieu of construction expenses, constitutes a "lease" under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The petitioners also challenged the validity of certain amendments to the Indian Stamp Act by the Madhya Pradesh government. The High Court dismissed the petitions, leading to an appeal to the Supreme Court. The appellants argued on various grounds including legitimate expectation, promissory estoppel, and the validity of the legislative amendments. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that the agreements were indeed leases and rejecting the claims based on legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel.

Background and Initial Decision

1. Impugned Judgment and Questions Raised:
   • High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissed petitions challenging whether BOT Scheme agreements constitute a lease and the validity of related legislative amendments.
2. Facts of Civil Appeal No.8985 of 2013:
   • MPRSNN authorized for road project under BOT Scheme.
   • Agreement signed with appellant, subsequent demand for stamp duty.
   • Appellant challenged the demand, High Court dismissed the writ petition.

Appellants' Arguments

3. Legitimate Expectation and Promissory Estoppel:

   • References to assurances by the Chief Secretary regarding no stamp duty.
   • Appellants argued they entered agreements based on these assurances.

4. Validity of Legislative Amendments:

   • Challenged the amendments as ultra vires, arbitrary, and lacking legislative competence.

5. Nature of Concession Agreement:

   • Argued it was not a lease but a license, with no transfer of property interest.

6. Joint Venture Argument:

   • MPRSNN as a 50% partner meant the project was a mutual contract, not subject to full stamp duty.

Respondents' Arguments

7. Defense by State of Madhya Pradesh:

   • High Court's detailed dismissal of appellants' arguments.
   • Agreements fulfilled all elements of a lease as per statutory definitions.

8. Refutation of Legitimate Expectation and Promissory Estoppel:

   • State's authority to amend laws in public interest.
   • No estoppel against legislative power.

Supreme Court's Analysis and Decision

9. Legitimate Expectation Doctrine:

   • Discussed various precedents, emphasizing it does not create an enforceable right but ensures procedural fairness.

10. Promissory Estoppel Doctrine:

    • Not applicable against legislative actions.
    • Executive decisions do not prevent legislative amendments in public interest.

11. Nature of Concession Agreement:

    • Agreement constituted a lease under both IS Act and TP Act.
    • High Court's reasoning upheld, agreements were not licenses.

12. Clarification Needed:

    • One aspect requiring further clarification noted but unspecified in summary.

Conclusion

13. Final Decision:
    • Appeals dismissed, High Court's judgment upheld.
    • Arguments on legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel rejected.

Relevant Judgments Cited

• Navjyoti Co-op. Group Housing Society Vs. Union of India
• Food Corporation of India Vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries
• The State of Jharkhand and Ors. Vs. Brahmputra Metallies Ltd. Ranchi and Anr
• State of Bihar and Ors. Vs. Shyama Nandan Mishra
• M/S Hero Moto Corp Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Ors.
• Associated Hotels of India Ltd. Vs. R.N. Kapoor
• State of Uttarakhand and Ors. Vs. Harpal Singh Rawat
• Nasiruddin and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Thr. Secretary and Ors
• State of Gujarat and another Vs. Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni and Ors.
• B.S. Yadav and Ors. etc. Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. Etc.
• Kunnathat Thathunni Moopil Nair Vs. The State of Kerala and another
• Union of India & Ors. v. Hindustan Development Corporation & Ors.
• Ram Pravesh Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors
• P.T.R. Exports (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
• Hero Motocorp Ltd vs Union of India