The main legal point established in the judgment is that the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be used to compel public bodies to carry out representations contrary to law or outside their authority.

( 1 ) THESE two petitions are disposed of by a common order since common questions of law arise for consideration in both these petitions.

( 2 ) IN Writ Petition No. 11976 of 1984 the preliminary notification in respect of the land in question was made on 21-3-1977 and the final notification was made on 14-5-1980. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition in the year 1984. In Writ Petition No. 17534 of 1087 the preliminary notification was made on 9-5-1968 and the final notification was made on 28-10-1971. Notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act were served on the petitioners on 7-12-1978, The award was passed on 4-6-1981. Award notices were served on the petitioners on 17-11-1981. The petitioners have filed their claim petition claiming compensation as per Annexures B and C on 17-11-1978. All the same in both the petitions the petitioners have challenged the Impugned acquisition proceedings on the basis of certain resolutions passed by the Bangalore Development Authority (B. D. A. for short) in their favour. In the first Writ petition, a resolution was passed by the B. D. A. on 17-11-1982 in Subject No. 241 acceding to the request of the petitioner for denotification of the land bearing Survey No. 345 of Banaswadi village measuring 3 acres 23 guntas. That resolution reads as under: "the request of Sr. B. Venkataswamy Reddy for denotification of land to an extent of 3 acres 23 guntas in Sy. No. 345 of Banaswadi village, for distributing among 18 members of his family be approved. " it is not in dispute that subsequently this resolution was withdrawn on 30-4-1984 in Subject No. 287. The same was communicated to the petitioner on 10-7-1984. The petitioner has filed this petition on 17-7-1984 and contends that since he is entitled to plead promissory estoppel in support of his challenge to the impugned acquisition proceedings, the delay in approaching this court has to be reckoned from the date of withdrawal of the resolution and not from the date of the impugned preliminary or the final notification. Likewise in Writ Petition No. 17534 of 1987 a resolution was passed by the B. D. A. in favour of the petitioner therein on 30-9-1982. But, that resolution was not approved by the Government by its order dated 20-9-1983. Writ Petition was filed in the year 1987. In this case also the petitioner has raised the plea of promissory estoppel in his favour and therefore he has pleaded that the delay in approaching this Court should be reckoned from the date of the resolution made by the B. D. A. in his favour and not from the date of the impugned preliminary or the final notification.

( 3 ) THOUGH these Writ Petitions could have been disposed of on the ground of laches, inasmuch as certain substantial questions of law have been raised by the petitioners on the power of the b. D. A. to denotify the lands and reconvey the same to the parties concerned, I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties on merits without confining myself to the question of laches only.

( 4 ) IT is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, relying on the provisions of Section 38 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act (in short the Act) that the power is conferred on the B. D. A. to transfer the lands to the petitioners by making a proper resolution to that effect.

( 5 ) BUT, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the B. D. A. that this point is no more re Integra in the light of the earlier Judgment of this Court reported in B. N. SATHYANARAYANA RAO v. STATE OF KARNATAKA ILR1987 KAR 790 which was affirmed in Writ Appeals Nos. 3t53 to 3159 of 1984 and in the tight of a decision of this Court in H. N. ABDUL REHMAN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. W. P. 8321 of 1984 DD 29-6-1984. In para 5 of the decision reported in ILR1987 KAR 790 this court has taken the view that:

"there is no provision in the Act or in the Rules framed thereunder which enables the B. D. A. to reconvey the site to the original owner. Reco