KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., BANGALORE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) E important question that arises for our consideration in this case is, whether the principle of Promissory Estoppel would apply so as to compel the Government to acquire certain lands.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows : The appellant herein selected certain lands in Cholanaikanahalli and Nagawara villages. This was with a view to form a layout in the lands which had been shown in the comprehensive development plan for residential purposes. The appellant advanced a sum of Rs. 42.00 lakhs to the land owners. But it could not purchase the lands from the land owners on account of the restrictions placed for purchase of lands by the society. Therefore, the appellant approached the Government and made request to acquire the lands. By letter dt. 2 -4 -1986 a direction was issued by the Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore, to the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, to issue S. 4(1) Notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in respect of the lands measuring 46 acres 37 guntas in these two villages in favour of the appellant after the case is cleared by the three Men Committee and after the recommendations of the Committee are considered by Government. Thereafter on 28th April, 1988, an agreement was entered into between the society on one hand and the Government on the other stating that the Government having caused inquiry to be made in conformity with the provisions of the Act and being satisfied that the lands arc required for public purpose, it was proposed to be acquired for the benefit of the society members subject to certain conditions. Inter alia the conditions provided that it shall be the entire responsibility of the society to pay the cost of acquisition and that the lands shall not be used for the purpose other than for which they are acquired. After the agreement was entered into, preliminary Notification under S. 4(1) of the Act was issued on 12 -1 -1989. Thereupon, a sum of Rs. 10.00 lakhs was deposited towards the cost of acquisition by the appellant. It is also stated by the appellant that during enquiry under S. 5 -A of the Act, none of the land owners objected to the acquisition. However, notwithstanding this, the Government did not further proceed with the acquisition and issue final declaration under S. 6 of the Act. Therefore, it became necessary on the part of the appellant to request the Government by repeated reminders. They were of no avail. It was under these circumstances, the Society came forward with W. P. No. 26357/90 for a direction to the first respondent, viz., State of Karnataka, to make a declaration under S. 6(1) of the Act and to declare that the 1st respondent had no right to abandon acquisition in view of the application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel.

(3.) SRI T. S. Ramachandra, learned counsel for the appellant, strenuously urges that this is a clear case in which the principle of promissory estoppel would apply for the following reasons : When the appellant could not purchase the lands from the land owners, it approached the Government and the Government not only satisfied itself that the lands are required for a public purpose but also issued S. 4(1) Notification. Thereafter, in pursuance of the agreement dt. 28 -4 -1988 entered into between the Appellant and the Government, a sum of Rs. 10.00 lakhs was deposited by the appellant. Therefore the principle of promissory estoppel would apply. The decision in Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Godfrey Philips India Ltd., AIR 1986 SC 806 would squarely apply to this case. No doubt there is power under S. 48 of the Act to withdraw the acquisition proceedings at any stage prior to taking possession, but that power is not an absolute power. In support of this, the learned counsel relied upon the decision in Chandra Bansi Singh and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, AIR 1984 SC 1767 These are the two submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. We will now proceed to consider them.