Debasish Kar Gupta, J.
1. This writ application is filed by the petitioner for a direction upon the respondent authority to register the lease deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the plot of land lying and situated at Plot No. 227, Block BE, Sector-1, Salt Lake City as also to grant mutation in respect of the above land in favour of the petitioner.
2. The fact of the case in a nutshell is this the aforesaid plot of land was allotted in favour of the father-in-law of the petitioner, namely, Manmatha Nath Roy on December 5, 1967. Pursuant thereto the money was deposited by the aforesaid Manmatha Nath Roy on September 9, 1971.
3. Subsequently, the aforesaid Manmatha Nath Roy died on October 15, 1971. On the basis of an application submitted by the husband of the writ petitioner the respondent authority by a communication dated August 14, 1992 asked him to produce certain documents for mutation of the aforesaid plot of land in his favour. Subsequently, the husband of the writ petitioner was directed by the respondent authority to deposit an amount of Rs. 500/- in favour of the respondent authority for the purpose of mutation of his name in respect of the plot under reference.
4. Subsequently, the respondent authority by a communication dated February 1/19, 2001 informed the husband of the petitioner and other legal heirs of late Manmatha Nath Roy that the allotment of the plot of land under reference had been cancelled. An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed by the legal heirs of the original allottee being W.P. 12787 (W) of 2001 (In re : Tapati Roy and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.) against the aforesaid order of cancellation of the allotment of the plot under reference. By an order dated October 10, 2001 the Court stayed the operation of the aforesaid order of cancellation of the allotment of plot under reference. During the pendency of the above writ application the writ petitioner submitted a representation on September 24, 2004 for considering the prayer for executing the lease deed in her favour as also to mutate her name in respect of the plot of land under reference after submission of no objection from the other legal heirs of the original allottee of the plot under reference. Pursuant thereto the respondent authority by communication dated April 8,2005 asked the writ petitioner to submit certain documents considering her above prayer. The petitioner submitted those documents to the respondent authority with a forwarding letter dated May 12/81, 2005.
5. Thereafter, the petitioner also submitted fresh relationship certificate with other legal heirs of the original allottees as per the direction of the respondent authority on June 27, 2005. The writ application being W.P. No. 12787 (W) of 2001 came up for hearing on July 11, 2005. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the above writ application was dismissed for non-prosecution. By a communication dated September 14, 2005 the respondent authority directed the writ petitioner to submit affidavits for the persons who were staying outside the country after authentication of the affidavits from the Indian High Commission of the country concerned. The writ petitioner submitted those affidavits in respect of the three legal heirs of the original allottee of the plot of land under reference with a forwarding letter dated January 30, 2006. The respondent authority as per communication dated March 8, 2006 directed to submit one more affidavits in respect of one of the legal heirs of the original allottee, because the same had not been authenticated by the Indian High Commission of the concerned country. Finally, the petitioner submitted the above affidavit as per direction of the respondent authority with a forwarding letter dated July 21, 2006.
6. According to the petitioner, the legal heirs of the original allottee of the plot under reference challenged the order of cancellation of the allotment of the plot under reference in a writ petitioner being W.P. No. 12787 (W) of 2001. By an order dated October 10, 2001 passed in the above writ petitioner the order of cancellation of allotment of the plot under reference was stayed. During the pendency of this writ application an assurance was given to the writ petitioner to allot the plot under reference in favour of the petitioner subject to obtaining no objection from the other legal heirs of the original allottee of the plot under reference. In support of the above submission, the attention of this Court is drawn towards the communication dated April 8, 2005 issued by the respondent authority to the petitioner (Annexure 'P-14' at page 54 to this writ application).
7. According to the petitioner she altered her position on the basis of such assurance by complying with the directions given in the above communication as also withdrawing the writ application being W.P. No. 12787 (W) of 2001. According to the writ petitioner, all the directions given by the respondent authority were complied with. Therefore it is not open to the respondent authority to sit tight over the matter.
8. Reliance is placed on the decisions of Union of India and Ors. v. Anglo Afghan Agencies reported in AIR 1968 SC 718; Century Spinning and . and Anr. v. Ulhasnagar Municipal Council and Anr. reported in : [1970]3SCR854 ; Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported in : [1979]118ITR326(SC) ; Madras City Wine Merchants' Association and Anr. v. State of T.N. and Anr. reported in : 1992(60)ELT674(SC) ; Dr. Ashok Kumar Maheshwari v. State of U.P. and Anr. reported in : [1998]1SCR147 and National Building Construction Corporation v. S. Raghunathan and Ors. reported in : AIR1998SC2779 , in support of the submission that applying doctrine of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation, the petitioner is entitled to get the deed of lease executed in her favour in respect of the plot of land under reference.
9. By way of filing affidavit-in-opposition, the case is contested by the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4,5 and 6. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent authority that the mutation of the plot under reference in favour of the original allottee, namely, late Manmatha Nath Roy had been cancelled by an order dated February 1/19, 2001. Therefore, there is no question of re-allotment of the plot under reference in favour of the petitioner not the above order of cancellation is under challenge in this writ application.
10. According to the respondents, the ground for cancellation was nonpayment of balance salami of an amount of Rs. 463/-.
11. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties as also considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that admittedly the plot of land under reference was allotted in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner on December 5, 1967. It is also not in dispute that an application dated August 14, 1992 was submitted by the legal heirs of the original allottee for mutation of their name in respect of the plot of land under reference. It is also not in dispute the respondents authority directed the legal heirs of the original allottee of the plot under reference deposited a sum of Rs. 500/- in favour of the respondent authority towards mutation as per communication dated February 13, 2000. It is also the admitted fact that the legal heirs of the original allottee deposited the above amount. It is also not in dispute that the allotment of the plot under reference was cancelled by the respondent authority, which was communicated to the legal heirs of the original allottee on February 01/19, 2001.
12. Admittedly, the legal heirs of the original allottee filed the writ application being W.P. No. 12787 (W) of 2001 (In re: Tapati Roy and Ors. v. State of W.B.) challenging the above order of cancellation of allotment. It is also not in dispute that the operation of the order of cancellation was stayed by an order dated October 10, 2001. It also appears from the record that during the pendency of this writ application the petitioner submitted on application dated September 24, 2004 for allotment of the above plot of land in her favour. The above letter dated September 24, 2004 is quoted below:
From:Smt. Kalyani RayB/44-B, Fern RoadKolkata-700 019To,The Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of West Bengal, DF-B, Nagarayan, Bidhannagar, Kolkata -700 064.
Date: 24/09/2004Dear Sir,Re : Residential Plot No. BE-227, Sector-I,Bidhannagar, Kolkata - 700 064.Sub : Mutation and Registration of LEASE DEED in my favour.This is for your kind information that the residential Plot No. 227, Block-BE, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, measuring 3.4276 cottahs was allotted by the Competent Authority in Government of West Bengal in favour of my father-in-law, Manmatha Nath Roy (since deceased) vide their letter No. 5725ISL (AL) dated 2nd/4th September, 1967. A sum of Rs. 8,550/- only towards premium and/or salami was deposited and also acknowledged by Departments receipt No. 1770 dated 28th September, 1966.
The Government of West Bengal through Irrigation and Waterways Department, Salt Lake Branch, vide it's letter No. 9208 ISL (AL) dated 5/8th December, 1967 confirmed allotment of the plot of land being Plot No. 227 in Block BE, Sector-1, Salt Lake City in favour of Manmatha Nath Roy.
A demand notice was received vide memo No. 3435 ISL(AL) dated 9th September, 1971 for payment of Rs. 463.40 towards balance salami and/or premium as well as an additional amount of Rs. 30/- towards cost of boundary pillars in respect of the said plot of land. We, the present heirs were not aware of this demand notice.
In compliance to letter No. 1778-SL(AL)/SL-766/66 dated 14.08.1992 issued by Urban Development Department, Government of West Bengal, my husband, Nabaendu Nath Roy submitted the requisite papers and informations for mutation of the said plot of land in favour of the heirs of Late Manmatha Nath Roy.
The requisite fees for mutation was also deposited on 20.04.2000 in compliance to Memo No. 606-SL(AL)/6L-766/66 (BE-227) dated 13.02.2000. However, the mutation is still pending.
Due to non-action of Urban Development Department, my sister-in-law, Smt. Tapati Roy for self and on behalf of other heirs filed a writ petition in the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta. The case is still pending.
Respected Sir, during my representation before you on this matter, besides listening to my prayer patiently, you have agreed to review the case and requested me to submit before you a fresh appeal.
One your green signal is obtained, we shall immediately withdraw the litigation pending before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta. All the heirs of late Manmatha Nath Roy have agreed to this decision and decided to renounce their respective presume rights in respect of the said plot of land in favour of myself, Smt. Kalyani Roy and have assured to grant necessary no-objections for the same as and when required.
We also agree to pay the balance amount due to U.D. Department, if any, as and when demanded for.
By virtue of the family decision, the undersigned, Kalyani Roy, would become the sole lessee of the plot No. BE-227 subject to no-objections from co-heirs and subsequently Mutation of the plot of land in her favour by the Urban Development Department.
My earnest prayer to you. Sir, therefore would be to grant Mutation and arrange for Registration of the Lease-Deed in my favour. It would also request you to favour me with a proforma N.O.C. from your Department. For this act of kindness, we shall be obliged and remain ever grateful to you.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
(Kalyani Roy)
13. It is revealed from the 9th paragraph of the above communication that the petitioner undertook to withdraw the earlier writ application on the assurance of the respondent authority to allot the plot under reference in her favour.
14. It is also not in dispute that on the basis of the above communication dated September 24, 2004, the respondent authority started considering the case of allotment of the plot of land under reference in favour of the petitioner by issuing a communication dated April 8, 2005 (Annexure P-14 at page 54 to this writ application).
15. It is also not in dispute that the writ petitioner was directed by the respondent authority to deposit a sum of Rs. 500/- in favour of the respondent authority towards mutation fees as per communication dated April 8, 2005 (Annexure P-15 at page 55 to this writ application). It is also not in dispute that on the basis of such assurance, the petitioner complied with the formalities of filing proper 'No Objection Certificate' from the other legal heirs of the original allottee and other documents on the basis of the directions given by the respondent authority. It appears from the record that on the basis of the above assurance, the writ application being W.P. No. 12787 (W) of 2001 was not pressed and the same was dismissed for 'Non-Prosecution' on July 11, 2005.
16. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is evident that the assurance deemed to had been given the petitioner by the respondent authority to allot the plot under reference in her favour subject to fulfillment of other formalities. It is further revealed that the petitioner fulfilled other formalities as also the legal heirs of the original allottee of the plot under reference did not proceed further in the writ application being W.P. No. l2787(W) of 2001. Thus, the petitioner altered her position to her prejudice on the basis of the assurance given by the respondent authority.
17. The law is well-settled in this regard. In order to decide the right of the petitioner to get the deed of lease executed in her favour in respect of the plot of land under reference. The relevant portions of the decision of Century Spinning Mills and . (supra) are quoted below:
Public bodies are as much bound as private individuals to carry out representations of facts and promises made by them, relying on which other persons have altered their position to their prejudice. The obligation arising against an individual out of his representation amounting to a promise may be enforced ex contractu by a person who acts upon the promise : when the law requires that a contract enforceable at law against a public body shall be in certain form or be executed in the manner prescribed by statute, the obligation may be enforced against it in appropriate cases in equity. In Union of India and Ors. v. Indo-Afghan Agencies Ltd., this Court held that the Government is not exempt from the equity arising out of the acts done by citizens to their prejudice, relying upon the representations as to its future conduct made by the Government. This Court held that the following observations made by Denning, J., in Robertson v. Minister of Pensions, applied in India:
The Crown cannot escape by saying that estoppels do not bind the Crown for that doctrine has long been exploded. Nor can the Crown escape by praying in aid the doctrine of executive necessity, that is, the doctrine that the Crown cannot bind itself so as to fetter its future executive action. We are in this case not concerned to deal with the question whether Denning, L.J., was right in extending the rule to a different class of cases as in Falmouth Boat Construction Co. Ltd. v. Howell, where he observed at p. 542:
Whenever Government officers in their dealings with a subject take on themselves to assume authority in a matter with which the subject is concerned, he is entitled to reply on their having the authority which they assume. He does not know, and cannot be expected to know, the limits of their authority, and he ought not to suffer if they exceed it.It may he sufficient to observe that in appeal from that Judgment (Howell v. Falmouth Boat Construction Co. Ltd.) (supra) Lord Simonds observed after referring to the observations of Denning, L.J.:
The illegality of an act is the same whether the action has been misled by an assumption of authority on the part of a Government officer however high or low in the hierarchy.
The question is whether the character of an act done in force of a statutory prohibition is affected by the fact that it had been induced by a misleading assumption of authority. In my opinion the answer is clearly: No.
12. If our nascent democracy is to thrive different stands of conduct for the people and the public bodies cannot ordinarily be permitted. A public body is, in our judgment, not exempt from liability to carry out its obligation arising out of representations made by it replying upon which a citizen has altered his position to his prejudice.
18. In view of the above settled principles of law, the petitioner is entitled to get the deed of lease in respect of the plot of land under reference executed in her favour as also she is entitled for mutation in her favour in respect of the plot of land under reference.
19. I, therefore, direct the respondent authority to execute the deed of lease in respect of the plot of land under reference in favour of the petitioner as also to mutate her name in respect of the plot of land under reference within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order and subject to fulfillment of other formalities by the petitioner, if any.
20. The writ application is, therefore, disposed of.
21. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, on priority basis.