Pre-emption rights require written consent; a pre-sale assurance not to pre-empt does not create estoppel.

Under the Berar Land Revenue Code, a pre-emptor's right of pre-emption can be displaced only by the statutory method, so prior oral consent to a transfer is insufficient and written consent is required. A purchaser also cannot invoke estoppel merely because the pre-emptor earlier said he would not pre-empt, since estoppel under the Evidence Act depends on a representation of existing fact, not a statement of future intention. The statutory right therefore prevails unless the Code's formal requirements for waiver or consent are met.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a pre-emptor's prior oral consent to the transfer defeats the right of pre-emption under Section 174(3) of the Berar Land Revenue Code; (ii) whether a purchaser can invoke estoppel where the pre-emptor merely assured him before the sale that he would not pre-empt.

Issue (i): whether a pre-emptor's prior oral consent to the transfer defeats the right of pre-emption under Section 174(3) of the Berar Land Revenue Code.

Analysis: The Code makes the accrual and enforcement of pre-emption rights conditional on the statutory scheme in Chapter XIV. Section 174(3) requires the consent of all occupants to be previously obtained in writing if the transfer is to avoid the right arising. Allowing oral consent to have the same effect would defeat that express requirement and render the writing requirement nugatory. The scheme also distinguishes written consent from the separate statutory waivers and notices contemplated elsewhere in the Code.

Conclusion: Oral consent is insufficient and does not defeat the right of pre-emption; written consent is necessary.

Issue (ii): whether a purchaser can invoke estoppel where the pre-emptor merely assured him before the sale that he would not pre-empt.

Analysis: Estoppel under Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 operates on representation of existing fact, not on a bare promise or statement of future intention. A statement that the pre-emptor will not pre-empt is only a representation of intention, which is revocable and does not constitute the kind of factual representation that can found estoppel. Where the sale is completed without notice and without written consent, the purchaser cannot convert such a pre-sale assurance into an estoppel against the statutory right.

Conclusion: No estoppel arose on the facts found; the purchaser could not rely on the pre-emptor's pre-sale assurance to defeat the claim for pre-emption.

Final Conclusion: The statutory right of pre-emption prevailed, the appeal succeeded, and the decree of the trial court was restored with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Berar Land Revenue Code, a pre-emptor's right can be displaced only in the manner the Code itself permits, and a mere oral assurance or promise not to pre-empt, being a statement of future intention rather than an existing fact, cannot operate as an estoppel against that statutory right.

---