Statutory Authority Cannot Be Compelled By Promissory Estoppel To Act Contrary To Governing Law: Karnataka High Court

"The doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked to compel a statutory authority to act contrary to the governing statutory framework or to confer a right which has no legal foundation." Karnataka High Court, in a judgment dated September 23, 2026, has ruled that the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked to compel statutory authorities to perform acts  contrary to the governing statutory framework, particularly where no enforceable legal right has been established.

A division bench comprising Justice D K Singh and Justice H Shanthi Bhushan observed that the state cannot be mandated to perform an act that lacks a sustainable statutory foundation, especially when the subject land is embroiled in litigation and is unavailable.

The appellant, a software company, sought the acquisition of 8.5 acres of land through the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) for an IT project. Following a prolonged series of litigations and conflicting claims over the title to the subject lands, the KIADB eventually allotted the lands to other parties. The appellant challenged the denial of the land and argued that the doctrine of promissory estoppel, coupled with the expenditure incurred for the project, entitled them to the allotment.

The court was primarily tasked with determining whether the acquisition procedure followed by the KIADB complied with the KIAD Act, 1966. Furthermore, it addressed whether the principle of promissory estoppel could be invoked against the state to compel land allotment in favor of the appellant, given the subsisting title disputes and the non-availability of the land.

Statutory Mandate Under Section 28

The court underscored that the KIAD Act provides a comprehensive mechanism for land acquisition. It held that the mandatory requirement of issuing a notice under Section 28(2) to owners and persons interested is not a mere procedural formality but a substantive right. The failure to serve such notice to interested parties vitiates the entire acquisition process as it denies them the opportunity to be heard.

Violation of Mandatory Procedures

The bench noted that the absence of notice to the seventh respondent, who held an interest in the land, rendered the acquisition proceedings legally unsustainable. Quoting the decision in Mukesh Kumar v. State of Karnataka, the court held that failure to follow the statutory sequence of notifications and hearings renders the proceedings ultra vires the statute and in violation of Articles 14, 21, and 300A of the Constitution.

No Absolute Right To Mandamus

Addressing the appellant's plea for a writ of mandamus, the court relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Mani Subrat Jain v. State of Haryana. It held that a writ of mandamus can only issue when the applicant establishes a subsisting legal right and a corresponding public duty. An assurance or expectation, even if made, cannot be elevated to an enforceable right that overrides the limitations imposed by the statute.

Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel Restricted

The court clarified that promissory estoppel cannot be used to bypass legal requirements or validate actions that lack a sustainable statutory foundation. It observed that the KIADB, having confirmed that no unlitigated, contiguous land is available, cannot be forced to allot land that does not exist in its unencumbered inventory.

Title Dispute and Registration Act Principles

Regarding the conflicting title claims, the court examined the effect of Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908. It held that while a sale deed operates from the date of its execution, this does not bypass the necessity for registration or conclusively settle the title if a dispute is pending. The court observed that the lower civil court had correctly recognized the title based on the prior sale deed, and this pending appellate adjudication further precluded the High Court from issuing any summary directions.

Monetary Compensation in Lieu of Land

Concluding that it could not issue a direction for the allotment of alternate land due to unavailability, the court focused on the principle of equity. It held that the appellant should not be left without a remedy after incurring significant expenditure based on the representations of the state. The bench directed the respondents to refund the deposit made by the appellant along with an interest of 8% per annum from the date of the SLAO order in 2009.

The court clarified that the monetary refund is without prejudice to the rights of the parties in the pending RFA No. 895/2009. The judgment maintains that the court will not act as an adjudicator of final title in the writ appeal jurisdiction, leaving the substantive title dispute to be resolved through the ongoing civil appellate process.

Date of Decision: 23 September 2026