ERNAKULAM MILLS LIMITED Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Kerala by certificate of fitness granted by the said High Court under Art. 133(1)(a) of the Constitution as it stood at the relevant time. The facts leading to the present appeal may be succinctly stated as follows.

(2.) The appellant is an owner of 69-5/8 cents of land comprised in Surveys Nos. 1178 / 2, 1195 / 2 and 1103 / 4 of Ernakulam village. The Government acquired a large tract of land including the land in dispute for the formation of the Foreshore Road at Ernakulam. The appellant's land was also acquired and the sheetanchor of the case of the appellant has been the correspondence between it and the officers of the Government by which some sort of assurance is said to have been given to the appellant that the land would be returned to it, if it was not required by the Government. A series of letters which will be dealt with hereafter between the appellant and the Government or its officers followed during the course of about 17 years culminating in the final refusal by the Government to return the land to the appellant on the ground that it was required by it for some public purpose. The appellant has based his claim on the promissory estoppel which, according to it, is spelt out from the letters of the Government, incorporating the alleged agreement between the appellant and the Government for return of its land. It was argued by the appellant that it was in view of the clear assurance given by the Government that the land would be returned to it that the appellant did not choose to file an application before the Collector for making a reference to the Court for enhancing the compensation awarded, which according to the appellant, was wholly inadequate.

(3.) In view of the refusal by the Government to return the land to the appellant, the appellant filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the High Court of Kerala praying that a direction or a writ may be, issued commanding the Government to reconvey the land to the appellant. The Government resisted the writ petition before the High Court mainly on the ground that there was absolutely no assurance or promise held out by the Government although the correspondence showed that there was some thinking in the mind of the Government regarding the possibility of derequisitioning the land. The High Court considered the legal aspect of the promissory estoppel and held that no writ could be granted. On facts also the High Court negatived the case of the appellant and held that from the evidence produced before it no solemn promise or agreement to return the land to the appellant was proved.