In support of the appeal Dr. V.A Seyid Muhammed appearing for the appellant submitted two points before us.
The appellants land was also acquired and the sheet anchor of the case of the appellant has been the companyrespondence between it and the officers of the Government by which some sort of assurance is said to have been given to the appellant that the land would be returned to it, if it was number required by the Government.
The facts leading to the present appeal may be succinctly stated as follows.
I therefore, request you to renew the request in June, 1960.
P. runs thus It am to inform you that your request can be companysidered only after the companypletion of the work of the Foreshore area.
Another letter on which reliance was placed was Ext.
1178/2, 1195/2 and 1103/4 of Ernakulam village.
This was undoubtedly a statement made, by the appellant in his own favour and was actually based on the letter Ext.
P 1 which was companystrued by the appellant to be an agreement, This letter, however, cannot bind the Government unless there was a clear or solemn promise on the part of the Government to reconvey the lands acquired by it.
This letter which was sent in reply to Ext.
This letter was written by the appellant to the District Collector, Ernakulam.
P 6 which is at p. 18 of the printed paper Book.
It was agreed at the time of acquisition that the area acquired from us would be returned to us soon after the work of the road was over.
This is all the evidence that was relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant in support of his plea that a promissory estoppel was made out in this case.
The words used by the appellant, namely, He replied to us saying that the matter was recieving attention clearly show that the matter was only receiving the attention of the Government and there was numberpromise made by the Government regarding reconveyancing of the land.
So, even though the companypensation paid was very lows we did number appeal against the award.
Another letter on which reliance was placed is P 7 a letter written by the appellant to the District Collector, Ernakulam, in which the appellant it self renewed its request to arrange for the return of the land acquired.
The Government acquired a large tract of land including the land in dispute for the formation of the Foreshore Road at Ernakulam.
Murtaza Fazal Ali.
But, protions of high level parambas number required for the road, foot paths, drains, etc.
Exhibit P 2 which is a letter written by the Collector, Ernakulam, to the appellant clearly shows that the Government had made numbercommitment to reconvey the land at any time.
The appellant is an owner of 69 5/8 cents of land companyprised in Survey Nos.
This document in a letter dated January 13, 1947 and appears at p.5 of the printed Paper Book.
One important feature of this letter is that the appellant itself understood the companyrespondence between it and the Government as a bare proposal.
J. This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Kerala by certificate of fitness granted by the said High Court under Article 133 1 a of the Constitution as it stood at the relevant time.
