https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189617 SC held that allottees acquired no vested right to possession of industrial plots where the underlying land was subject to forest and airbase restrictions, and the Administration could not be compelled to act contrary to law. Promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation could not override statutory prohibitions, though equitable redress was warranted for the mistaken scheme. The Court upheld a rational distinction between consentees and non-consentees for alternative allotment, but protected consentees from being charged a higher price caused by administrative delay. Persons who had not pursued the matter before the High Court were denied the same relief. en-us Tue, 13 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Jun 2024 19:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189617 SC held that allottees acquired no vested right to possession of industrial plots where the underlying land was subject to forest and airbase restrictions, and the Administration could not be compelled to act contrary to law. Promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation could not override statutory prohibitions, though equitable redress was warranted for the mistaken scheme. The Court upheld a rational distinction between consentees and non-consentees for alternative allotment, but protected consentees from being charged a higher price caused by administrative delay. Persons who had not pursued the matter before the High Court were denied the same relief. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 13 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189617