Promissory estoppel cannot compel land acquisition where statute allows withdrawal before possession, the HC held.

Promissory estoppel could not compel the Government to complete acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, because a Section 4(1) notification is only initiatory and does not create an enforceable right; the claim failed. Section 48 expressly allowed withdrawal from acquisition before possession was taken, and the agreement to bear acquisition costs did not curtail that statutory power. As no Section 6 declaration had been issued and no possession or vested right had arisen, the Government's withdrawal was valid; allegations of mala fides were not proved. The writ appeal therefore failed and dismissal of the writ petition was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel could be invoked to compel the Government to complete acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; (ii) Whether the Government could withdraw from the acquisition before taking possession under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, notwithstanding the agreement and preliminary steps taken.

Issue (i): Whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel could be invoked to compel the Government to complete acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Analysis: The acquisition process under the Act is an exercise of the State's sovereign power of eminent domain. A preliminary notification under Section 4(1) is only initiatory in nature and does not create an enforceable right in favour of the beneficiary. Finality arises only after the statutory process culminates in a declaration under Section 6 and the remaining steps leading to possession and vesting. A representation or agreement cannot override the statutory scheme where the promise sought to be enforced would conflict with the Act itself.

Conclusion: The doctrine of promissory estoppel could not be used to compel completion of acquisition.

Issue (ii): Whether the Government could withdraw from the acquisition before taking possession under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, notwithstanding the agreement and preliminary steps taken.

Analysis: Section 48 expressly permits the Government to withdraw from acquisition at any time before possession is taken. The agreement to bear the cost of acquisition did not curtail that statutory liberty. Since no final declaration under Section 6 had been issued and possession had not been taken, no vested right arose in the appellant, and no detriment sufficient to displace the statutory power was shown. Allegations of mala fides were not established on the facts presented.

Conclusion: The Government was entitled to withdraw from the acquisition before possession was taken.

Final Conclusion: The writ appeal failed, and the dismissal of the writ petition was upheld because promissory estoppel could not override the statutory power of withdrawal under the land acquisition .

Ratio Decidendi: Promissory estoppel cannot be invoked to compel the Government to complete an acquisition where the governing statute expressly permits withdrawal before possession is taken and no accrued legal right has arisen in favour of the claimant.

---