ORDER
1. The petitioner is a society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. Its members are employees of the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, a public sector corporation wholly owned by the Government of India. It is a notified defence establishment. The impugned order in this writ petition was passed on 23-3-89 by the Government of Andhra Pradesh by which the request of the petitioner-society, for allotment of land in S. No. 64 of Madhavapuram village in Rangareddy District for construction of houses to the members of the society, was rejected on the ground that the Government have decided not to give Government land to Co-operative Housing Societies'. The request for allotment of land originally emanated from Capt. R. S. Siva-swami, General Manager, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'H. A.L.') in the form of a letter dated 26-11-1981 addressed to the Chief Secretary to the State Government stating that the Hon'ble Chief Minister of the State at a dinner hosted in honour of Hon'ble Minister of Defence on 18-7-1981 'promised land for the employees to form themselves into a Society for housing colony......'. He, therefore, requested the Chief Secretary to expedite the matter. TheState Government directed the District Collector, Hyderabad by a letter dated 11-12-1981 to take 'necessary action in the matter immediately'. A copy of that letter was communicated to the General Manager, H.A.L. with a request to approach the Collector, Hyderabad. The Collector, Rangareddy District by a letter dated 21-12-1981 informed the General Manager that 'I have to first find out suitable areas and then decide upon inspecting the sites. I am forwarding your letter to the Revenue Divisional Officer to furnish me the list of vacant lands which could be inspected for this purpose to provide house sites to the employees of the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited.......'. The employees of H.A.L. formed a Co-operative Society bearing Registrationn No. TBC-476. The General Manager by another letter dated 21-1-1982 requested the Collector that at least 100 acres of land was required -- the land covered by S. No. 64 at Maze Madhapur and the land covered by S. Nos. 347 and 361 at Kukatpally would suit the requirements of the employees. Thereafter a letter was sent on 1-2-1982 by the Collector, Rangareddy District informing the General Manager that the request is being considered. The Collector, Rangareddy District requested the General Manager, H.A.L. by a letter dated 16-2-1982 to send the requisition for the land, extent, location, sketch, necessary affidavits from the members of the Co-operative Society and their salary certificates etc. The same was duly complied with by the H.A.L. and a suitable reply in that regard was sent on 10-7-1982 to the Collector, Rangareddy District. Thereafter, by a letter dated 9-12-1982 addressed to the General Manager, the District Collector, Rangareddy, informed him that 'I invite your attention to the reference cited and inform you that as already decided, no more land in excess of Ac. 89-31 guntas can be given at Madhapur village. You are therefore requested to select land in adjoining village, if need be send requisition along with full details for consideration'. The land was surveyed and sub-divided by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records. It was found that there were some encroachers on the land and after issuing notices to the encroachers, the land was resumed. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division in his letter dated 31-3-1983 addressed to the District Collectorclearly informed that the Tahasildar rejected the request of the encroachers on the ground that 'because of the ban, no land could be assigned to them'. The land covered by S. No. 64 admeasuring Ac. 645-16 guntas was classified as Government land (Kancha). He also stated in that communication that the Fertilizer Corporation of India Employees Co-operative Housing Society requested for allotment of Ac. 30-00 of land, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority requested for allotment of Ac. 181-20 and that there is sufficient land available for allotment. The market value of the land was proposed to be fixed at Rs. 15,000/- per acre. The requisition forms and other necessary documents by the said communication were submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer to the District Collector.
2. Nothing was done thereafter. But a decision was taken to reject the request of the Society and it was communicated by the Government to the General Manager, H. A.L. by a letter dated 23-4-1984 which reads : 'with reference to the letter cited, I am directed to state that the request for allotment of land for construction of houses cannot be complied with as no land is available for allotment'. Thereafter, the management of H.A.L. continued to pursue the matter. The Government by a letter dated 5-7-1985 informed the management of the H.A.L. that 'whether in the event of allotment of Government land, the Company is willing to build houses for its workers as a labour colony put up by the Company itself and not on 'own your House' scheme basis'. A reply was sent by the management of H.A.L. to the Government on 14-7-1985 informing that the land is meant for construction of houses by the members of the Society, which was formed at the instance of the Government, the H.A.L. will provide the required technical and administrative support to the society for construction of houses and finance will be obtained from HDFC, HUDCO, LIC. etc. The Society also wanted to avail the services of HUDA. When the management made a further request, a meeting took place on 2-9-85 to discuss the whole matter. At the meeting held on 2-9-1985, according to the petitioner, the management was advised to take possession of the land for developing the colony in public interest andthat it was made clear that after the houses are built, they will be transferred to the employees on permanent basis. The Andhra Pradesh Housing Board approved in principle to take up the housing scheme and accordingly passed a resolution to that effect on 7-10-1987. By a communication dated 20-11-1987, the Housing Board called upon the President of the petitioner-Society 'to convey your acceptance of the conditions stipulated therein'. The petitioner-Society conveyed its acceptance on 20-12-1987. By a letter dt. 3-12-1987, the Housing Board requested the petitioner-Society to handover the possession of the land for taking onward action. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed by the Government on 23-3-1989 rejecting the request of the petitioner-Society on the ground that it was the policy of the Government not to assign Government land to individuals or Co-operative Housing Societies.
3. The contention of the petitioner-Society is that the Government is bound by the principles of promissory estoppel to allot the land. Having taken a decision to allot the land and directed the concerned authorities to comply with all the procedural formalities, at the final stage of handing over possession of the land, the Government had no power to go back on its promise. The rejection of the request on the ground of policy decision, according to the petitioner, is only a device invented to reject its lawful claim.
4. The stand taken in the two counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the Government is that in the year 1984 itself, the management of H.A.L. was informed that no land was available for allotment and that order having become final, it is not open to the petitioner-Society to reagitate the matter. The policy decision of the Government is not to assign Government land to any individuals or Cooperative Societies and the only exception is in favour of members of weaker sections whose annual income is less than Rs. 6,000/-. The Government have decided by G.O.Ms. No. 441 dated 11-5-1989 that the land covered by S. No. 64 should be transferred to Food and Agriculture Department for the purpose of developing Krishak Nagar, where in a single complex, the offices of various Government departments, Corporations, Commodity Federations and the A. P. Rashtra Karshaka Parishad should be located.
5. As far back as on 5-5-1982 by G.O.Ms. No. 633, Revenue Department, the Government decided that no vacant land within 10 miles periphery of greater Hyderabad city should be assigned or otherwise disposed of until the Government have assessed the requirement in various departments for building accommodation in the city. The above ban order was liable to be reviewed after the requirements of the departments are worked out.
6. The first contention of the learned Advocate-General is that because of the ban imposed by G.O.Ms. No. 633 dated 5-5-1982, no land could be assigned in favour of the petitioner-society. I am unable to accept this. The decision of the Collector, Rangareddy District, which was communicated on 9-12-1982 to the Management of H.A.L. to allot Ac.89-31 guntas to the petitioner-society was taken long after the ban was imposed. It is not as if G.O.Ms. No. 633 dated 5-5-1982 constituted an absolute barricade forbidding the Government from passing orders of assignment. Orders were passed in favour of many societies assigning Government land: the following are some of the instance: By G.O.Ms. No. 753 dt. 5-5-1984, an extent of Ac.5-10 cents was assigned infavour of Panchavati Co-operative House Building Society, all the members of which are I.A.S. Officers. By G.O.Ms. Nos. 181, 489 and 495 dated 9-2-1984, 14-5-1985 and 5-5-1986 respectively the employees of Allwyn Limited, a State Government undertaking were allotted land at Kukatapally. The Government, after satifying itself about the genuine need of the employees of the petitioner-society, instructed the Collector to pursue the matter and on the instructions of the Government only the Collector sent the communication dated 9-12-1984 to the management of the H.A.L. categorically stating that 'as already decided, no more land in excess of Ac.89-31 guntas could be given at Madhapur'. The words 'as already decided clearly convey the meaning that a decision was already taken by the Government and Collector was only communicating the same to the management of the H.A.L.
7. The file produced before me strangely reveals a totally different set of facts. It appears that towards the final stage when the decision was to be formally conveyed, it was felt that the claims of the State Government employees for allotment of house sites should be given preference over Central Government employees. Therefore, the Government have decided that 'State Government employees' a requirement should have preference over Central Government employees. This request may be rejected.' (Vide page 3 of the note file). This decision was communicated on 23-4-1984 to the management of the H.A.L. suppressing the real reason for rejecting the request. The order dated 23-4-1984 communicated Government to the management of the H.A.L. says that the request was rejected 'as no land is available for allotment'. The reason given is factually incorrect and patently misleading. The land is still available, as can be seen from the latest order of the Government passed in G.O.Ms. No. 441 dated 11-5-1989 allotting the entire land covered by S.No.64 to the Food and Agriculture Department for purpose of developing Krishak Nagar. Even by 31-3-1983, encroachments on the land were cleared and the Revenue Divisional Officer in his communication addressed to the Collector on the said date had referred to the evailability, of land to the extent of Ac.645-16 guntas. It is ununderstandable why the Government had chosen to communicate a false reason for rejecting the request of the petitioner-society.
8. Having communicated the decision to the management that there was no land available, the Government once again reconsidered the whole thing and sent another communication on 5-7-1985 in letter No. 1611/Q2/84-1 in order to ascertain whether 'in the event of allotment of Government land, the Company is willing to build houses for its workers as a labour colony put up by the Company itself and not on 'Own your House' scheme basis.' If the land was not available on the previous occasion, it is paradoxical how the land could be materialised for the purpose of building houses for a labour colony. The real reason for rejecting the request of the petitioner-society at the final stage was because of the view taken that the State Government employees are entitled to have preference over the Central Government employees in the matter of allotment of house sites. There is no rational basis for taking such a decision. The request of each society, whether it consists of employees of the Central Government or the State Government, must be considered on its merits dispassionately. The accident of the members of a society being employees of the State Government should not by itself be a factor in their favour for allotment of house sites. It must be mentioned in this context that the land belongs to the State Government, and as the Central Government has no land of its own, the question of Central Government allotting or assigning the land in favour of its employees would not arise. It is for the State Government to take a rational view depending upon the circumstances and the exigency of the situation and the needs and requirements of the employees.
9. Since 1981 the management of the H. A.L. has been constantly and continuously pleading with the State Government to allot the land to the employees of H.A.L. At the instance of the State Government the employees formed themselves into a society. Initially, the Government had accepted the request of the management of the H.A.L., but towards the final stage, it felt that its own employees should be given preference. The file produced before me does not show that on the date when the decision was taken to reject the request of the petitioner-society, any requests from any of the societies comprising State Government employees as members have been pending before the Government. There was no examination on this question. To say the least, the decision taken, in the particular circumstances, in my opinion, is clearly unreasonable.
10. After 1984 when the matter was pursued by the Society, a discussion was held in the Secretariat in the presence of the Revenue Secretary. It was made clear at that meeting by the management of the H.A.L. that after the houses were built, the same could be transferred to the members of the petitioner-society. The Housing Board actually associated itself in principle to take up the construction work and a resolution to that effectwas also passed and the acceptance of the petitioner-society was obtained. All these events go to show that even in November, 1987 the possibility of the Government complying with the request of the petitioner-society was imminent. The policy decision taken not to assign the Government land to individuals or Co-operative Housing Societies by G.O.Ms. No. 700 dated 20-6-1986 has no retrospective effect. By the date of the decision, the Government had already committed itself to assign an extent of Ac.89-31 guntas covered by S.No. 64 of Madhavapur village in favour of the petitioner-society.
11. Had the Government told the management of the H.A.L. in the beginning itself in 1981 when vast tracts of land was readily available for construction purposes, the management would have explored alternative arrangements to provide housing accommodation to their employees. Because of the promise made by the State Government, the management, thinking that the promise would be acted upon, did not explore other possibililies. It is the promise of the Government that had altered the position of the petitioner-society. The doctrine of Promissory estoppel also applies against the Government. It is no defence for the Government to say that because of executive necessity, it need not keep up its promise. In M. P. Sugar Mills v. State of U.P., : [1979]118ITR326(SC) , the Supreme Court held (at P. 643 of AIR):
'Where the Government makes a promise knowing or intending that it would be acted on by the promisee and, in fact, the promisee, acting in reliance on it, alters his position, the Government would be held bound by the promise and the promise would be enforceable against the Government at the instance of the promisee, notwithstanding that there is no consideration for the promise and the promise is not recorded in the form of a formal contract as required by Art. 299 of the Constitution. It is elementary that in a republic governed by the rule of law, no one, howsoever high or low, is above the law. Every one is subject to the law as fully and completely as any other and the Government is no exception. It is indeed the pride ofconstitutional democracy and rule of law that the Government stands on the same footing as a private individual so far as the obligation of the law is concerned: the former is equally bound as the latter. The Government cannot claim to be immune from the applicability of the rule of promissory estoppel and repudiate a promise made by it on the ground that such promise may fetter its future executive action. If the Government does not want its freedom of executive action to be hampered or restricted, the Government need not make a promise knowing or intending that it would be acted on by the promisee and the promisee would alter his position relying upon it. But if the Government makes such a promise and the promisee acts in reliance upon it and alters his position, there is no reason why the Government should not be compelled to make good such promise like any other private individual.'
12. It is true that if there is overriding public interest, it is always open to the Government to resile from the promise. In the present case, the file containing allotment of the land in favour of Karshaka Parishad has not been placed before me. The constitutional validity of the Act by which the Karshaka Parishad was brought into being was questioned and a Division Bench of this Court on 1-9-1988 had struck down part of the Act and also set aside the appointment of the Chairman. The reappointment made subsequently was also struck down by this Court. No final decision was taken about the setting, up of Karshaka Parishad. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before me a copy of Telugu daily 'Eenadu' dated 15-4-1990 which contained a statement of the Hon'ble Minister for Agriculture that the Karshaka Parishat exists only on paper. Even if Karshaka Parishad comes into existence, it cannot be said that the entire extent of Ac.645-16 guntas would be required for Krishak Nagar. In any event, having made a promise as far back as 1982 to the petitioner-society it is inequitable on the part of the Government not to act upon that promise. The extent of the land promised to the petitioner is only Ac.89-31 guntas out of the Ac.645-16 guntas covered by S.No. 64 of Madhavapur village. Apart from the principle of Promissory estoppel, in the interests of good government the commitment made to the management of the H.A.L. should be honoured. The employees of any Central Government public sector undertaking, after having been promised assignment of land, should not be subjected to disappointment on the ground of the policy of the Government that the State Government employees should be given preference in the matter of assignment of house sites. Apart from the legality of the governmental action, its legitimacy also is involved in a situation of the present type.
13. For these reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 23-3-1989 passed by the Government in Letter No. 1200/Q3/87-1 is set aside. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to allot Ac.89-31 guntas in S.No. 64 of Madhavapur village as demarcated earlier in favour of the petitioner-society on 16-3-83 by the Assistant Director of Survey and Settlement in reference No. 65/4225/ 82, on payment of the present market value as entered in the Basic Valuation Registers maintained by the Registration Department. Within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the respondents shall comply with the above direction. No costs.
14. Petition allowed.