A petitioner must establish a legal right to the property in question in order to be entitled to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. A Municipality has the power to remove encroachments on public streets under section 240(1)(a) of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932, without notice. The doctrine of Promissory Estoppel is not applicable where the petitioners fail to establish a promise by the Municipality.

The judgment of the Court was as follows :

These 104 Rules were obtained by the petitioners who are squatters and have erected temporary huts on the metalled portions of the public street known as "Arobinda Road" at Naihati. They challenged a notice dated 31.10.75 issued by the Administrator, Naihati Municipality, by which the petitioners were asked to remove the obstructions on the two sides of the road within 30 days from the date of that notice, in default, the authorities would take action in accordance with law. It is the case of the petitioners that they were refugees and they were forced to leave East Pakistan. From Sealdah Station they shifted to Naihati. By erecting shops on the land situated by the side of Arobinda Road within Naihati Municipality, they started business. It is alleged that the petitioners have been carrying on business since last 28 years. Sometime in 1953 the local police tried to disturb their peaceful possession but at the instance of the union known as Naihati Hawhrs' Union formed in 1950, the S.D.O., Barracpore, sent a note to the Officer-in-charge, Naihati Police Station, that so long as alternative arrangements were not made, these poor hawkers should not be disturbed. The petitioners approached the Minister, Refugee Relief and Rehabilitation, Union of India through their Union. The said Union was informed that the allotment of land for rehabilitation was within the purview of the State Government. Ultimately the Commissioner, Refugee and Rehabilitation Department, informed the said union by his letter dated 30.7.58. that steps for earlier acquisition of land were being taken by the Directorate. Sometime in 17.11.75 there was an announcement by beating of drum, by the Administrator of the Naibati Municipality whereby the petitioners were informed that they had to remove their shops within 30 days from the date of the announcement. Thereafter the petitioners went to the office of the respondent no. 3 wherein they collector the impugned notice dated 31.10.75 directing the shop-keepers to remove their structures. The petitioners being aggrieved, moved this Court and obtained these Rules as also the interim in junction.

2. Affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of respondent no 3 and affirmed by Kartick Chandra Mallick, Acting Executive Officer Naihati Municipality, wherein it has been denied that the petitioners had been carrying on business at the side for the last 28 years or that they possessed any trade licence from the Municipality. It bas also been denied that the Municipality gave its consent, express or implied, or permission, to construct the shops or made any promise to the petitioners The Municipality never gave any assurance to any of the hawkers to construct the shops. Another affidavit-in-opposition bas been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 and affirmed by Dipak Kumar Das Gupta, Assistant Secretary, Refugee Relief and Rehabilitation Department, Government of West Bengal, wherein it is stated that one Sri Nityanandi Ghosh and 5 others of Naihati submitted a petition dated 25.5.56 to the Minister-in-Charge. Refugee Relief and Rehabilitation Department stating therein that 200 hawkers, stated to be in unauthorised occupation on both sides of Arobinda Road, Naibati had been directed by the local police to remove their shops in pursuance of the order of the SDO. Barrackpare, They prayed for requisition of an adjacent land of a local Zaminder for alternative accommodation for their business The Refugee Relief and Rehabilitation Department after enquiry considered it expedient to acquire the said land under the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948, with a view to remove the encroachers from the vital through-fare of Naihati. Accordingly a notification under section 4 of the said Act was published in the Calcutta Gazette. The Land Acquisition Collector, 24-Parganas (North), enquired into the matter• and submitted his report under section 44(2) of the