The principle of promissory estoppel precludes LIC from changing allotment terms after accepting payments, ensuring compliance with initial housing policies.

JUDGMENT :

DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J.

The essential grievance of all these petitioners is against the decision of Life Insurance Corporation of India in refusing to follow the lottery procedure for allotment of flats/apartments, as was assured & done earlier. The LIC claims to have changed the policy decision to the effect that the allotment shall be on the basis of public auction.

2. FOUNDATIONAL FACTS OF THE CASE

(a) LIC of India is a statutory Corporation having been established under the provisions of Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956. It is a Parliamentary statute, is obvious. The State Government, vide order dated 25.08.1992, allotted a big chunk of land to the LIC. The lease deed came to be executed on 17.06.2014. The LIC formulated a Scheme called “Policy Holders' Housing Scheme (Jeevan Bima Nagar) at Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar. There were 192 flats comprised in the Phase-I and they were allotted and occupancy was granted during the year 2000. Subsequently, in Phase-II, 228 flats were constructed in the remaining area available and they were ready for occupation. Of them, 153 were already allotted leaving the 75 in balance. These were offered for allotment “on lease basis on prescribed prices as is where is basis”. That is what was held out by the LIC to the Policy Holders by way of published Broacher in January, 2014, a copy whereof is produced as annexure.

(b) It is specifically averred in the petitions that there were 420 flats in all in Phase-I, of which 345, having been allotted to the applicants on lottery basis, the conveyances also have been executed by way of lease, and that they are occupied. Remaining 75 flats are stated to be comprised in Phase-II. All these petitioners had applied for allotment of these flats, by complying with conditions prescribed in the brochure. A draw of lottery was held on 26.03.2014 and admittedly allotment letters have been issued to all these petitioners, who have remitted a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- way back in 2014 itself. All they were pressing for due execution of conveyance by way of lease, as was held out in the broachers issued by LIC.

(c) In the meanwhile, the extant law relating to registration of documents was amended under Section 22 of the REGISTRATION ACT , 1908 making the production of updated Record of Rights a sine qua non for registration with effect from 24.04.2014. In the absence of ROR, registration of document was stopped. Therefore, the LIC had applied to the State Government for generating ROR, vide letter dated 29.05.2014, reflecting its name as the lessee. The Government, vide letter dated 06.06.2014, instructed the Inspector General of Registration and Stamps to facilitate the registration of subleases in favour of the allottees. However, the Government, having discovered that the land leased to the LIC was part of a reserve forest and therefore could not accomplish the generation of ROR in the light of the bar enacted in the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.

(d) The LIC, in view of the legal bar, issued individual letters to the allottees stating that it was not possible to execute the sublease deed of the flats or give possession until its name was entered in the ROR. It also informed them that the last date for making payment of balance of the consideration would be intimated after the formality of updating ROR was completed. However, petitioners sent letters to the effect that they would await ROR updation, since they were interested in the allotment and not its revocation. The LIC came up with plea in its letter dated 19.12.2014 that the State Government, being the lessor, has advised it for diversion of the land comprised in its lease deed dated 25.06.1993, and that allotments be cancelled. The allottees did not agree for canc