- (1.) D. S. Sinha, J. Heard Sri Manish Goyal, holding brief of Sri R. P. Goyal learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner, at length and in detail. Sri Vinaya Malviya, learned standing counsel repre senting the respondents, has also been heard.
(2.) JEEVAN Bima Karmchari Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. , Bareilly, the petitioner, made a request to the respondents to ac quire plots No. 297 and 229 measuring 5. 22 acres, situate at Nawada Jogiyan in the dis trict of Bareilly for the purposes of con structing houses far its members. The re quest was acceded to, and petitioner was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 99, 050/- as approximate compensation for acquisition of the land sought to be acquired. The petitioner deposited the amount. Thereupon, the proceedings for ac quiring the land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter called the Act' were initiated. A notification dated 21st of March, 1986, under Section 4 of the Act, was published in the official Gazette of the State of Uttar Pradesh dated 24th May, 1986. This notification was fol lowed by another notification dated 12th May, 1987 issued under Section 6 of the Act and was published in the official Gazette dated 12th May, 1987, True copy of these notifications are appended to the writ peti tion as Annexures Iland III. More than two years from the date of publication of the declaration under Sec tion 6 of the Act elapsed but the award under Section 11 of the Act was not given by the Collector. Consequently, the whole ac quisition proceedings relating to the plots in dispute lapsed in terms of Section 11-Aof the Act.
(3.) BY means of instant petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner urges the Court to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of man damus commanding the respondents to deliver the possession of the land in dispute to the petitioner or allot a portion of the disputed land which, according to it, had vested in the State Government under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as "the Ceiling Act". In support of the prayer of the petitioner Sri Goyal contends that the State was bound to deliver the possession of the disputed land or allot a portion thereof on the principle of promissory estoppel. Elaborating his submission, the learned counsel submits that inasmuch as the petitioner was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 99, 050/- by way of approximate compen sation for acquisition of the land and the petitioner having deposited the same it could not be denied the delivery of posses sion or allotment of the disputed land. Countering the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner Sri Vinaya Mal-viya, learned standing counsel, submits that reliance by the petitioner upon the principle of promissory estoppel is misplaced inas much as the State never premised to deliver the possession of the disputed land or to allot the same to the petitioner. Sri Malaviya submits that, at best, the respon dents had given out to start proceedings for acquisition of the disputed land under the provisions of the Act on petitioner's depositing the approximate compensation for the acquisition of the land. Sri Malviya further submits that for allotment of the land vested in the State under the provisions of the Ceiling Act, the petitioner has to resort to the course prescribed under the Ceiling Act itself. He draws the attention of the Court towards Section 23 of the Act which provides the manner of and proce dure for disposal of the vacant land acquired and vested in the State Government under the Ceiling Act.;