Statutory limits bar reconveyance of acquired land; promissory estoppel and executive direction cannot override vested acquisition.

The governing statutes and rules did not confer a general power on the Bangalore Development Authority to withdraw from acquisition or reconvey land acquired for a development scheme. Promissory estoppel could not compel reconveyance because a public authority cannot be required to act outside statutory power. Once acquisition was completed, compensation paid and possession taken, the land vested and the State Government could not direct reconveyance by general executive powers or invalid directions. Reconveyance was therefore not legally permissible, although refund of compensation with interest was granted to the landowner.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Bangalore Development Authority had power under the governing statute and rules to reconvey land acquired for a development scheme. (ii) Whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel could be invoked to compel reconveyance on the basis of the earlier resolution. (iii) Whether the State Government could direct reconveyance after the land had vested and possession had been taken.

Issue (i): Whether the Bangalore Development Authority had power under the governing statute and rules to reconvey land acquired for a development scheme.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of the City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 and the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 was examined to determine the scope of the authority's powers. The provisions dealing with holding, transfer, and application of acquired land were held to contemplate use of such land for the development scheme and allotment of sites in accordance with the rules. The later amendment introducing Section 38-C permitted allotment in certain cases, but did not confer a general power to withdraw from acquisition or reconvey land. The validating provision in Section 9 of the amendment was also held inapplicable to the 1972 resolution.

Conclusion: The Authority had no power to reconvey the acquired land, and the earlier resolution could not be enforced as a reconveyance of the land.

Issue (ii): Whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel could be invoked to compel reconveyance on the basis of the earlier resolution.

Analysis: The Court held that promissory estoppel cannot be used to compel a public authority to do an act that is unauthorised by law or prohibited by statute. Since the Act and the Rules did not empower reconveyance, any promise to that effect could not override the statutory position. The alleged alteration of position by the landowner did not create a legal entitlement contrary to the statute.

Conclusion: The doctrine of promissory estoppel was not available to enforce reconveyance against the Authority.

Issue (iii): Whether the State Government could direct reconveyance after the land had vested and possession had been taken.

Analysis: The acquisition had been completed, compensation had been tendered and paid, and possession had been taken, resulting in vesting of the land. Once vesting occurred, the State could not cancel or withdraw the acquisition by invoking general powers under the General Clauses Act or the Land Acquisition Act. The directions issued through the Chief Minister were also held not to be valid directions under Section 65, because such directions must further the purposes of the Act and cannot defeat them.

Conclusion: The State Government had no power to direct reconveyance in the circumstances of the case, and the impugned directions were invalid.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the High Court's decision succeeded on the central issues of power, estoppel, and governmental authority. Reconveyance of the land was not legally permissible, though the landowner was granted monetary relief by way of refund and interest on the compensation amount.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory authority cannot be compelled by promissory estoppel or executive direction to reconvey land when the governing enactment does not confer such power and the acquired land has already vested after completion of acquisition proceedings.

---