R. M. Sahai, J. - (1.) ;-
(2.) 'Tarwala Hata Scheme Kanpur' with 'intention to stop haphazard development of the city and also to layout the area in planned manner' published in Government Gazette of March 1938 under Section 36 (1) of Town Improvement Act finally sanctioned by Government on January 24, 1962 lay dormant between 1939-45, 'due to second world war' and 'thereafter independence and partition of country' kept alive under Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 by virtue of Sec. 755 (1), attained finality on 31st October 1961 when Special Land Acquisition Officer gave the award determining compensation on market value of property on material date that is March 1938. Whether with rolling of twenty three years before award was finalised and another thirteen years when notice for taking over possession was given frustrated objective of acquisition and resulted in abandonment as a matter of law would have been interesting problem but that is saved as action of opposite party does not leave any speck of doubt about abandonment from acquisition of the land in dispute as a fact. Not only this opposite parties by their' conduct shall be deemed to have pursuaded petitioner and her predecessor to alter their position to their prejudice thereby providing them with shield of estoppel against any action effecting their title, ownership or possession. Dispute is about plot no. 71/57 Sutarkhana, Kanpur. It is not disputed in counter affidavit filed by Executive Engineer, Nagar Mahapalika that this plot with house standing over it was transferred by Kanpur Development Authority on 30th May, 1959 in favour of one Ram Gulam. Rather, it is stated, in paragraph 3 of counter that the Nazul land was sold to Sri Ram Gulam out right on 5th August, 1959. It was purchased by petitioner on 30th March, 1969 after Ram Gulam showed her letter dated 29th November, 1966 sent by Nagar Abhiyanta, Kanpur informing that H. No. 71/57 New (Old 41/47 in the name of Ram Gulam is not under acquisition). her name was duly mutated also. What is claimed is that no valid title passed to petitioner as house in dispute stood acquired by award dated 31st October, 1961. Although it is doubtful if declaration of intention to acquire land in 1938 for planned development could be given finality in 1961 but debate on this larger issue is avoided as it being admitted that outright sale was made in 1959 the Mahapalika obviously gave up its intention to acquire this plot. If it intended to acquire it by finalising the award it could not have transferred. In the sale deed it is mentioned that it was absolute owner of plot and outright transfer by sale was being made after obtaining sanction of the Board. Therefore, the intention of declaration to acquire this plot came to an end. In any case after execution of sale deed in 1959 and conferring of right of ownership on Ram Gulam the Board shall be deemed to have represented that it had given up the intention of acquiring it and therefore, if Ram Gulam acting on it sold it to petitioner she shall be deemed to have acquired full ownership over it The Board is stopped from resisting her title. Of course it was open to the Board to acquire this plot after 1959 in accordance with law. But, not on the scheme of acquisition started in 1938. Award in respect of this plot in 1961 was lifeless. The intention to acquire having met its death by out light sale in 1959 it could not be brought to life in 1961 by framing award and issuing notice for possession. Law prevents a transferor from denying title of transferee even when the transferor had no right and date of transfer but a quires it subsequently. Such being equitable concept of justice how can opposite party, a public body, be permitted to be unfair and unjust. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The notice dated 11th November, 1974 and award dated 31st October, 1961 in respect of plot No. 71/57 Sutarkhana, Kanpur is quashed. The petitioner is entitled to its costs which is assessed at Rs. 1000/-. Petition allowed;