TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (6) TMI 253
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... direction was issued by the Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore, to the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, to issue Section 4(1) Notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in respect of the lands measuring 46 acres 37 guntas in these two villages in favour of the appellant after the case is cleared by the Three Men Committee and after the recommendations of the Committee are considered by Government. Thereafter on 28th April 1988, an Agreement was entered into between the Society on one hand and the Government on the other stating that the Government having caused inquiry to be made in conformity with the provisions of the Act and being satisfied that the lands are required for public purpose, it was proposed to be acquired for the benefit of the Society members subject to certain conditions. Inter alia the conditions provided that it shall be the entire responsibility of the Society to pay the cost of acquisition and that the lands shall not be used for the purpose other than for which they are acquired. After the Agreement was entered into, Preliminary Notification under Section 4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant. We will now proceed to consider them. 5. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is nothing more than a codified legislation embodying the Doctrine of Eminent Domain. It cannot be denied and rather it is settled in law, such a power is sovereign in its character. In other words, it is an attribute of sovereign power. 6. The sine qua non for acquisition of land is what is known as public purpose. Though originally the Act did not contain the definition of public purpose or what purpose will constitute public purpose, later on by Amending Act 68 of 1984, it came to be defined. 7. Acquisition can be under two Parts: (1) Part-II and (2) Part- VII, Where it is for public purpose, Part-II applies. Where the acquisition is for a Company or for a Co-operative Society, Part VII applies. In deciding whether the acquisition is under which of these two Parts, the test is, whether the State has contributed for the purpose of acquisition from the public coffer. As a matter of fact, in laying this dictum, in SOMAWANTI v. STATE OF PUNJAB, [1963]2SCR774 it was held that though the cost of acquisition was huge when only ₹ 100/- was contributed, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... provisions of Part III of this Act shall apply, so far as may be to the determination of the compensation payable under this Section." From a reading of the above Section, it is clear that at any time before possession is taken, it is open to the Government to withdraw from the acquisition. Of course it is a different matter if the withdrawal is for collateral purpose, about which we will deal with later. 9. In this case, what the appellant is contending is that it approached the land owners to purchase the lands. Having regard to certain statutory difficulties, it being a Co-operative Society, was not able to purchase the property, requested the machinery of eminent domain that acquisition be put in motion. The Government being satisfied that it is for public purpose, issued Preliminary Notification on 12-1-1989. By this Preliminary Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, no right enured in favour of the appellant-Society. Be that so. Prior to that, the Society entered into an Agreement with the Government on 28-4-1988 and agreed to bear the cost of acquisition. In other words, the Government wanted that cost to be borne by the Society. But, for reasons best known to i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rohibition. It is equally true that promissory estoppel cannot be used to compel the Government or a public authority to carry out a representation or promise which is contrary to law or which was outside the authority or power of the officer of the Government or of the public authority to make. We may also point out that the doctrine of promissory estoppel being an equitable doctrine, it must yield when the equity so requires, if it can be shown by the Government or public authority that having regard to the facts as they have transpired, it would be inequitable to hold the Government or public authority to the promise or representation made by it, the Court would not raise an equity in favour of the person to whom the promise or representation is made and enforce the promise or representation against the Government or public authority. The doctrine of promissory estoppel would be displaced in such a case, because on the facts, equity would not require that the Government or public authority should be held bound by the promise or representation made by it. This aspect has been dealt with fully in Motilal Sugar Mills case (supra) and we find ourselves wholly in agreement with what ....