A party is estopped from going back on its assurance if the other party has materially changed its position to its advantage by acting on the assurance.

M.R.SHARMA, J.

1. This petition has been filed by the Atam Nagar Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., Ludhiana, (hereinafter referred to as the Society). The Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, adopted two schemes for the urban development. Some persons approached it for allotment of plots and the Chair man of the Trust gave them an assurance that if they formed a co-operative society their request would be favourably considered. Pursuant to that assurance, the petitioner-society had come into existence on Oct. 24, 1964. On the application of the society, the land purchased by this Society was exempted from the operation of the provisions of the scheme. This is apparent from the following letter written on 13-7-1969 by the Executive Officer, Town Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, to its Land Acquisition Officer :

"You are informed that the Trust vide its Resolution No. 23 which was passed unanimously on 2-7-1969 has agreed to exempt the land purchased by the Atam Nagar Co-op. House Building Society in Model Town Extension (V. Gill Nos. 1 and 2) details of which are indicated therein. A copy of the resolution is enclosed herewith."

2. On 5-11-1964 the Chairman of the Trust wrote to the Society that 200 residential plots shall be allotted to it, as soon as the possession of the land was taken. On 19-8-1966 the Chairman asked the Society to deposit a sum of Rupees 5,71,050.00 as the price of 90 plots allotted to it which was also done. Later on at the instance of some of the land-owners whose land was sought to be acquired, scheme No. 2 was quashed by this Court on the ground that a period of more than 3 years had intervened between the time when the Trust issued the earlier notification regarding its intention to acquire the land and the second notification relating to the actual acquisition. On the basis of the judgement the Trust scrapped scheme No. 1 also in which the petitioner-society had been promised the allotment of plots.

3. When a new scheme of the same type was adopted the Trust declined to honour its earlier commitments and to offer residential plots to the petitioner-society. The request made by the latter that the land purchased by it should be exempted from the operation of the scheme was also turned down. The Society has come up in the instant petition against the action of the Trust.

4. There are really two points to be determined in this petition. Firstly, whether the Trust can be directed to abide by its earlier commitments to allot residential plots to the petitioner-society or not, and secondly, whether the Trust can be directed to grant an exemption in favour of the land purchased by the petitioner-society even when the earlier scheme has been scrapped and another one has been adopted in its place.

5. It is not disputed that the Society was formed on the assurance given by the Chairman of the Trust to some persons to the effect that in case they formed a co-operative society their request for allotment of plots would be favourably considered. Pursuant to that assurance, those persons along with some others did form the petitioner-Society. As many as 90 residential plots were in fact allotted to the Society pursuant to the assurance given by the Chairman. The amount advanced by the Society for the allotment of the additional plots continues to be lying with the Trust even though on an earlier occasion the Chairman had addressed a letter to the Society that it should withdraw the said amount. Now, if the Chairman had not given an assurance that the plots would be allotted if the applicants for plots form a cooperative society, they would perhaps have not acted on that assurance and would have made alternative arrangements for getting residential plots. By acting on the assurance given by the Chairman, they had materially changed their position to their advantage and in the circumstances the Trust would be estopped from going back on the solemn assurance given by it earlier.

6. Mr. Narang, the learned counsel