1. Petitioners have filed this petition challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the orders Annexure P-1 dated 7.6.2004, (Annexure P-14) dated 4.6.2004 and Annexure R-1 dated 26.8.2005.

Brief facts necessary for lawful adjudication of this matter are as under:-

2. The case of the petitioners is that they purchased the land in question pursuant to the sale deeds Annexure P-2 and P-3. After the said sale deeds, a mutation was done by order dated 9.10.2002 (Annexure P-9). The demarcation was made by way of Panchanama Annexure P-7. Thereafter, the petitioner prayed for change of land use and accordingly permission for diversion was sought for. On 6.5.2003 (Annexure P-5) no objection was given by the Nazul Officer, Gwalior. The NOC was given by Traffic Police by Annexure P-6 and by PHE Vide Annexure P-11. The State Government, in turn, published a notification in the Official Gazette dated 1.8.2003 and by way of this notification dated 23.7.2003 permission for diversion was given. By order dated 11.12.2003 (Annexure P-12), Town and Country Planning granted NOC. The Municipal Corporation granted NOC by order dated 24.2.2004 (Annexure P-13).

3. Shri Anil Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, by taking this Court to the aforesaid documents and the reply in State Assembly submits that the Government has taken a stand before the Vidhan Sabha that Survey No. 1259/1/1 to 1259/1/8 is a private land. Reliance in this regard is placed on Annexure P-15 and P-16 filed with the rejoinder. On the basis of answer to question No. 5067 and 5066, Shri Anil Sharma submits that State Government has taken a clear stand that the land in question is a private land.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the basis of aforesaid NOC and the notification dated 23.7.2003 (Annexure P-4), the right is accrued in favour of the petitioner. The impugned order Annexure P1 came as a bolt from blue to the petitioner whereby the aforesaid permission was kept in abeyance and the petitioner was directed to obtain NOC from the Nazul Officer and submit it before the Joint Director, Town and Country Planning. Shri Sharma by criticizing this order submits that once the said permission was already granted to the petitioner by Annexure P-5 dated 6.5.2003, there was no occasion for the respondents to pass the aforesaid order. He submits that all the statutory authorities have granted him no objection but without considering the aforesaid, the impugned order Annexure P1 is passed.

5. The learned counsel submits that Annexure P-14 dated 4.6.2004 is also bad in law whereby the Nazul Officer requested the Joint Director, Town and Country Planning to act in a particular manner. The learned counsel for the petitioner also assailed the order dated 26.8.2005 (Annexure R-1). He submits that in view of constant and clear stand of the Government and reflected in various documents including the stand before the Vidhan Sabha, it is clear that the land in question is a private land and, therefore, the respondents have not committed any error earlier in granting the NOC and issuing the notification dated 23.7.2003.

6. The learned counsel submits that the impugned order is assailed on two basic legal points:-

(i) The respondents have taken a specific stand before the State Assembly and in Annexure P-5. They are bound by the aforesaid stand and such stand operates as ‘promissory estoppel’ against them. The respondents cannot be permitted to resile from the earlier stand and they cannot take a “U” turn from the earlier stand.

(ii) The impugned orders entail civil consequences and before issuing the said order the petitioner should have been heard.

7. Per contra, Shri B. Raj Pandey, learned Government Advocate submits that a bare perusal of Annexure R-1 and R-2 shows that the land in question was consistently recorded as “Raiyatwari (Government land)” and the nature of land was described as “Charnoi gair mumkin”. he submits that later on there is some manipulati