https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189319 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. en-us Thu, 01 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Jan 2017 16:56:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189319 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 01 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189319