9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1531X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the petitioner made the payment by misrepresentation. It is to be noted that nobody has a case that remittance was under mistake or under compulsion. In such scenario, the only conclusion is possible is that the petitioner made the payment and he was encouraged to make such payment by the Government. The stand in the counter that since the petitioner had cleared the entire liability, the Government can re-convey the land only if the petitioner remits the market value of the land. It is to be noted that the petitioner did not make any application - Therefore, the only irresistible conclusion that can be drawn is that the Government encouraged the petitioner to make the payment or the Government remains acquiesced when payments have been ef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regarding the re-conveyance of the bought in land dated 22/03/1996 is produced along with the memo by the Government order. The relevant Government Order reads as follows: In cases wherein the date of sale confirmation of bought-in-land is on or after 01/11/1983, the requests for re-conveyance from the Original owner or his undisputed heirs will be allowed provided the current market value of the land is also remitted. Six months time from the date of issue of this order will be allowed for submitting applications for the purpose and after that date no such applications will be entertained under any circumstances. 2. If the land is exclusively vested with the Government, certainly, the reconveyance can be only based on the aforesai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o determine the rights and liabilities of the parties. 6. Although there is a view that an estoppel can operate only as a shield not as a sword, there is an exceptional type, which is called equitable estoppel. This type of estoppel in fact was relied upon by the parties to prefer a claim. The extended version of the equitable estoppel is also known as promissory estoppel when a party has acted upon a promise of another. House of Lord in Ramsden v. Dyson 1866 LR I HL 129, 170, explains the above Rules as follows: If a man, under a verbal agreement with a landlord for a certain interest in land, or, what amounts to the same thing under an expectation, created or encouraged by the landlord that he shall have a certain interest, take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the text books define promissory estoppel as follows: Snell: Promissory estoppel: Where by his words or conduct on party to a transaction makes to the other a promise or assurance which is intended to affect the legal relations between them, and the other party acts upon it, altering his position to his detriment, the party making the promise or assurance will not be permitted to act inconsistently with it. Like estoppel at common law, promissory estoppel may provide a defence but it can create no cause of action. The difference between it and proprietary estoppel is that the effect of promissory estoppel may be only temporary whereas that of proprietary estoppel is not only permanent but is also capable of operating positivel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l by encouragement or acquiescence, and so long as it is understood that this terminology does not produce a new estoppel, but is effective only to assign a new name to an old and well-established one, there can be no objection to the new term. It may easily enough come about, however, that a relaxation in the terminology of subject may induce a corresponding relaxation in the systematic thought of its philosophers; and it is already possible, in the estoppel cases, to find traces of a distinct tendency loosely to lump together the doctrines of acquiescence, or proprietary estoppel , and of promissory estoppel, as if they were one, or took their origin from the same source, or were regulated by the same principles. It is for this reason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... encouraged to make such payment by the Government. The stand in the counter that since the petitioner had cleared the entire liability, the Government can re-convey the land only if the petitioner remits the market value of the land. It is to be noted that the petitioner did not make any application. It is to be noted that the payment was not effected pursuant to the Government Order. The Government could not have entertained such application after the outer limit prescribed referred in the Government Order. Therefore, the only irresistible conclusion that can be drawn is that the Government encouraged the petitioner to make the payment or the Government remains acquiesced when payments have been effected to discharge the liability. In s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
