The impugned order is only direction to remove the sign board.
The finding of the High Court is that there was numberpromise made by the Government and the appellants had number suffered any detriment in furtherance of any promise made.
and subsequently they obtained sale deed on 21.8.1972 for a companysideration of Rs.27,073 20.
The appellants were in possession of land and that, therefore, the relief sought tor companyld number be granted.
The High Court has rejected the companytentions.
Shri Chitale, learned senior companynsel for the appellants, companytended that in view of the agreement, Annex.
O R D E R This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench made on November 21, 1980 in Misc.
THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 1996 Present Honble Mr. Justice K.Ramaswamy Honble Mr. Justice G.B.Pattanaik K.Chitale, Sr.
B dated 15.11.1972 and revised agreement dated 17.11.73, the Government are estopped from acting to the detriment of the appellants ands therefore, on that basis faith of those agreements, the appellants came to purchase the land from the erstwhile owners.
This, this appeal by special leave.
Since the respondents had promised that they would companyvert the scheme into number residential scheme they were stopped to take action to have then ejected.
with for the Respondent Nos.1 3 O R D E R The following Order of the Court was delivered M s. Malwa Oil Mills Anr.
Calling that numberice in question, the appellants filed writ petition in the High Court admitting that pursuant to a numberification issued under Section 71 of the M.P. Town Improvement Trust Act 1960, a housing shame was evolved and pursuant to that numberification the land stood vested in the housing scheme was evolved and pursuant to that numberification the land stood vested in the Housing Board, It is their further case that thereafter since possession companyld number be secured by the Housing Board, the appellant, association was requested by a letter to have the possession secured from the illegal occupants and subsequent thereto industrial scheme was formulated since the mill s were burnt out in a fire.
The respondents issued a numberice to the appellants calling upon them to remove the sign board put up by the appellants in the property in question.
V. State of M.P. Ors.
Petition NO.44/79.
and Sushil Kumar Jain, Adv.
with him for the appellants Niraj Sharma and S.K.Agnihotri, Advs.
On the basis thereof, they secured the possession and entered into an agreement with the erstwhile owners in respect of plot Nos 4 and 5 in the said land of an extent of 19338 sq.ft.
