The court clarified that a representation must be specific and unqualified, made with the intention to be acted upon, and induce alteration of position to establish promissory estoppel. It also emphasized the absence of a statutory duty to return the land, rendering the writ of mandamus inapplicable.

1. The Ernakulam Mills Ltd., the petitioner, was the owner of 69-58 cents of land comprised in Sy. Nos. 1178/2,1195/2 and 1103/4 of Ernakulam village. The land was acquired in 1122 ME. (1947) for the formation of the Fore-shore Road, Ernakulam. The petitioner states that the land was high level land not required for the formation of the road and that the Dewan of Cochin on inspection of the spot was satisfied about the inequity of the acquisition. During the course of the.acquisition the Government of Cochin sent a communication to the petitioner, Ext. P1 dated 13 11947, apparently in reply to a letter sent by the petitioner on 10 11947, informing it that "portions of high level parambas not required for the Road, foot-paths or drains to be constructed will be returned to the present owners". On 3101957 the petitioner made a representation to the District Collector of Trichur for return of the land acquired from it in view of the assurance in Ext. P1. The Collector informed the petitioner that the matter was under consideration of government. When the Ernakulam District was formed the petitioner renewed its request to the Collector of Ernakulam to return the land to it on 3121945 and 12 61958, but the petitioner was informed by the original of Ext. P2 that the request can be considered only after the completion of the work of the Foreshore Road and directed it to renew the request in June 1960. The petitioner accordingly filed another application in June 1960, but getting no reply, the petitioner requested the government for reconveyance of the land to it. Government rejected the request. The petitioner then made an application to review the order. That was rejected by Ext. P3 order dated 10 111966.

2. The petitioner contends that the decision of the government not to reconvey the land to it is wrong and prays for a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the government to reconvey the land to it. The petitioner submits that the government was estopped by the representation in Ext. P1 from denying its right to get a reconveyance of the land, and that another plot of land acquired under similar circumstances was returned to its former owner on the basis of the representation in Ext. P1, and therefore, the decision of the government not to return the land to the petitioner is discriminatory and offends Art.14 of the Constitution.

3. The petitioner submits that there was a promise in Ext. P1 to return the land to it, as the land acquired from it being high level paramba, was not required for the construction of the road, footpaths or drains etc, that on the faith of the promise it did not file an application for reference under S 17 of the Cochin Land Acquisition Act claiming enhanced compensation and has thus altered its position to its deriment. in that the compensation awarded was only Rs, 350/- to Rs. 450/- per cent, whereas the market value of the land in the locality was even then Rs. 1,000/- per cent, and it stood a good chance of getting compensation at the market value if it had applied for a reference. Counsel for the petitioner relied on the ruling of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Anglo Afghan Agencies AIR. 1968 SC. 718 to support his argument. In that case the court said that government must honour its promise just like any other individual, and that a person, who acting upon the representation contained in the Export Promotion Scheme adumbrating the policy of government, makes an application for import licence of wool of a specified value, was entitled to have the licence issued to him notwithstanding the change of policy by the government in the meanwhile. The court said that where a person had acted upon a representation made in the Export Promotion Scheme that import licence upto the value of goods will be issued and has exported goods, his claim for import for the maximum value cannot be arbitrarily rejected, that the doctrine of equitable estoppel is applicable to governm