Preferential allotment requires strict statutory eligibility; illegal prior allotments and accepted deposits cannot create rights by parity or estoppel.

Preferential allotment under the applicable scheme was available only to claimants who strictly satisfied the defined status of local displaced person and the relevant ownership and continuity requirements. The respondents failed to prove those statutory conditions, so they were not entitled to preferential allotment. Alleged earlier allotments in favour of others could not create an enforceable right to similar relief where those allotments were themselves contrary to the governing rules. Acceptance of deposits also did not prevent cancellation, because there is no estoppel against law and promissory estoppel cannot validate an illegal allotment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondents qualified as local displaced persons entitled to preferential allotment under the applicable allotment rules; (ii) whether alleged allotments made in favour of similarly situated persons created an enforceable right to similar relief; (iii) whether prior allotments and acceptance of deposits barred cancellation by reason of promissory estoppel.

Issue (i): Whether the respondents qualified as local displaced persons entitled to preferential allotment under the applicable allotment rules.

Analysis: The entitlement to preferential allotment depended on satisfaction of the definition of local displaced person under the relevant set of rules governing each acquisition. Under the 1954 Rules, the definition was confined to acquisitions under the Damaged Areas Act. Under the 1975 and 1983 Rules, the claimant had to be the owner of the acquired property for the prescribed continuous period before first publication of the scheme. The respondents failed to establish that they satisfied these statutory conditions, and the burden to prove such entitlement lay on them.

Conclusion: The respondents were not entitled to preferential allotment as local displaced persons.

Issue (ii): Whether alleged allotments made in favour of similarly situated persons created an enforceable right to similar relief.

Analysis: A right to equal treatment cannot be founded on an allocation that is itself contrary to the governing rules. Before relying on parity, the legality of the earlier allotments had first to be established. If those allotments were beyond the scope of the rules, they could not be used to compel a similar illegal benefit in favour of the respondents.

Conclusion: Prior wrongful allotments did not confer any enforceable right on the respondents.

Issue (iii): Whether prior allotments and acceptance of deposits barred cancellation by reason of promissory estoppel.

Analysis: There is no estoppel against law. Any allotment contrary to the statutory rules was unlawful, and unlawful allotments could not be protected by promissory or equitable estoppel merely because deposits had been accepted. The legality of the allotment controlled the matter, not the earlier conduct of the Trust.

Conclusion: Promissory estoppel did not bar cancellation of the illegal allotments.

Final Conclusion: The impugned decrees could not be sustained because the respondents did not establish statutory eligibility for preferential allotment, and neither parity with others nor estoppel could validate allotments made contrary to the governing rules.

Ratio Decidendi: A preferential allotment under statutory scheme rules can be claimed only by a person who strictly satisfies the applicable definition and eligibility conditions, and neither an illegal prior allotment nor estoppel can create a right contrary to law.

---