The main legal point established is the obligation to honor commitments and the inequity of retrospective policy changes, emphasizing the applicability of the doctrine of legitimate expectancy and promissory estoppel.

JUDGMENT :

1. In the above-captioned first petition, a mandamus is sought to first three respondents to execute and register a lease-deed in terms of letter of allotment of 24th June, 1985 in favour of petitioner in respect of 4 acres of land, out of land comprised in Khasras No.109 and 185 situated in Village Nasirpur, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘subject land’) and to hand over the possession of the said land to petitioner-Society.

2. In the Reply Affidavit filed by respondents No.2 & 3, the stand taken is that petitioner-Society had failed to complete all the required formalities and to deposit the lease money for formal allotment of the ‘subject land’. It is also stated in the aforesaid Reply Affidavit that on 24th June, 1985, the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi had decided in-principle to make allotment of the ‘subject land’ on certain terms and conditions and since those terms and conditions were not fulfilled, therefore, there was no execution of the lease-deed. It is also asserted in the Reply Affidavit of respondents No.2 & 3 that possession of 40 Bighas of Gaon Sabha land, which was found vacant out of 91 Bighas and 10 Biswas, was handed over to respondent-DDA and it is so reflected in the Report of 13th October, 2003 (Annexure R-1). It is further asserted in this Reply Affidavit that as per Notification of 24th October, 1994, Revenue Estate of Village Nasirpur was declared urbanized under Section 507 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and the all the properties of this Revenue Estate vested in the Central Government/DDA and that W.P. (C) 3817/1991 filed by private persons/individuals on similar facts stood dismissed for non-prosecution.

3. In the rejoinder filed by petitioner-Society to the Reply Affidavit of respondents No.2 & 3, it is reasserted that petitioner-Society vide letter of 8th July, 1985 addressed to Director (Panchayat), Delhi had conveyed its acceptance to all terms of the letter of allotment of 24th June, 1985 and it was also communicated to respondents that petitioner-Society has arranged the funds to deposit lease amount, etc., and is ready to pay it at any time. Petitioner-Society asserted that vide letter of 17th August, 1985, audited statement of account of petitioner-Society was also submitted to Director (Panchayat), Delhi and vide another Communication of 10th January, 1986, a request was made to Director (Panchayat), Delhi to act upon the letter of allotment of 24th June, 1985. However, it is stated that during the said period, a Notification for requisition of land in Village Nasirpur under the Land Acquisition Act was issued, but the said Notification was quashed by Supreme Court vide order of 10th December, 1987 in W.Ps.(C) 991/1986 and 12641/1986. According to petitioner-Society, from the year 1986 till 1990, the President of petitioner-Society had made several visits to the office of respondents No.2 & 3 with a request to execute the lease-deed, but to no avail.

4. It is also asserted in the rejoinder that vide letter of 3rd April, 1990, readiness and willingness of petitioner-Society to comply with all the terms and conditions of allotment of letter of 24th June, 1985 was conveyed to Director (Panchayat), Delhi and several representations and visits were made to the office of respondents No.2 & 3 to execute the lease-deed in respect of 4 acres of land allotted to petitioner-Society, i.e., the subject land. Copies of letters of 8th July, 1985; 17th August, 1985 and 10th January, 1986 making such requests have been annexed with the writ petition as Annexures P-3 to P-5. In this rejoinder, counter-affidavit of March, 1992 (Annexure P-11) filed by respondents in the W.P. (C) 3817/1991 preferred by Raj Karan & Others vs. Lt. Governor & Ors. is relied upon to assert that the Lieutenant Governor had decided to honour the commitment to allot the subject land to petitioner-Society.

5. It is specifically asserted in this rejoinder that the status quo order of 6th December, 1991 passe