AGRAWAL, C. J. - (1.) THIS writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, has been filed by the petitioner challenging the validity of the order dated 20-3-1985 cancelling the allotment of land to the petitioner given to it for construction of a hospital on the ground that the petitioner Trust had not taken steps to build the hospital within two years and thus violated the conditions of allotment order.
(2.) IN pursuance of the State Government's decision dated 16. 07. 1970 to allot a piece of land measuring 4000 square yards at one fourth price of the reserve to the petitioner, the Jaipur Development Authority issued the allotment order dated 5. 10. 1972 to the petitioner on the condition that the petitioner would construct the hospital within two years of allotment. The period of allotment was extended from time to time and ultimately through letter dated 12-5-1982 extended two years further time to the petitioner. It was, however, mentioned that in the event of the petitioner did not complete the construction within two years, the allotment would stand cancelled. The petitioner did not start the construction of the hospital and requested for further extension. The Jaipur Development Authority wrote a letter dated 21-7-1984 to the petitioner, which reads as under : *********** In pursuance of the aforesaid letter, an undertaking was given by the petitioner to the following effect : " I, Mannalal Soorana, son of late Shri Milap Chandji Surana, resident of Surana House, D-32 Subhash Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Chairman of the Soorana Charitable Trust, Hanuman ka Rasta, Jaipur, do hereby undertake to construct the hospital building within a period of two years, provided no hindrance is caused due to unforeseen circumstances. I hereby further undertake to abide by the terms and conditions contained in letter no. 16304 dated 8-10-1972 of Urban Improvement Trust. " The petitioner again defaulted and despite the time having been granted it did not construct and build the hospital. Hence, by the letter dated 20-3-1985 (Annex. 8) the petitioner was informed : ************ Having realized the consequences of not completing the construction of the hospital within the period allowed, the petitioner filed a civil suit on 23. 4. 1985 in the court of Munsif Magistrate (East), Jaipur alongwith an application for temporary injunction praying that the Jaipur Development Authority should not interfere with the possession of the aforesaid plot of the petitioner. The Munsiff Magistrate rejected the application on 29-4-1989. The petitioner withdrew the suit on 12-7-1989 without taking the liberty to file a fresh suit. Thereafter, on 4-4-1991 the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of the order of the Jaipur Development Authority dated 20. 03. 1985 and directing it to approve the plan submitted by the petitioner on 5th Oct. 1984 for construction of a charitable hospital. There is a dispute in between the parties about the submission of the plan for construction of the hospital. The petitioner has claimed that the plan was submitted, whereas the Jaipur Development Authority has denied its receipt. The version of the petitioner appears to be unfounded and not established. The main objection of the respondent No. 2 was that the petitioner had not completed the construction of the hospital within the time allowed and , as such, it was within its right to cancel the allotment order.
(3.) I have noted above that allotment order to the petitioner was issued in the year 1972 and the condition mentioned in that allotment order was that the petitioner would complete the construction of the hospital within two years. It, however, did not do so. Even after the re-allotment of the plot by the Jaipur Development Authority vide letter dated 12-5-1982, the petitioner failed in getting the hospital constructed. The petitioner's request for further time was turned down by the Government of Rajasthan on 12-3-1985. It was informed that the Government considered over the matter and since no effective steps were taken to construct the hospital and conditions were violated, therefore, allotment of land had been cancelled. The State Government called upon the respondent No. 2 to take possession of the land immediately. Having not been able to persuade the State Government and the Jaipur Development Authority for extension of time, the petitioner filed the civil suit alongwith an application for temporary injunction. The trial court rejected the application. Having realized that the only purpose of the petitioner which was to get an injunction order could not be fulfilled, it withdrew the suit without seeking liberty to file a fresh suit. What would be the effect of withdrawal of the suit is a question which need not be considered as the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on other grounds. The petitioner had not acquired any right by virtue of allotment of the land for construction of the hospital. It did not construct the hospital. It has been stated by the petitioner that it built boundary walls over the land allotted to it, but that has been disputed by the respondent No. 2. Mr. Lodha, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the land having been allotted to the petitioner, the State Government as well as the Jaipur Development Authority were estopped from cancelling the allotment order. The learned counsel relied on the principal of promissory estoppel for getting the relief in the present writ petition. In order to invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel it is enough to show that the promisee has, acted in reliance on the promise, altered his position. In the instant case, nothing had been shown that the petitioner had altered its position. ;