ANAND PRASAD SINHA, J.

(1.) The petitioners, the Postal Co-operative House Construction Society Limited (hereinafter to be referred to as the Society) and its Secretary (hereinafter to be referred to as the Secretary of the Society have filed this writ application for the quashing the resolution dated 26-7-1980 of the Bihar State Housing Board (hereinafter to be referred to as the Board) by which a decision has been taken for allotment of lands in favour of Aniket Girih Nirman Sahyog Samiti (hereinafter to be referred to as the Samiti). A copy of the said resolution is Annexure-1 to this application.

(2.) The salient facts of the case are stated hereunder: The Society consists of the employees of the post Office working in the Patna district and has been duly registered under the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 (hereinafter to be referred to as the). The Society in the meeting of its general body held on the 3rd Sept., 1955 adopted a resolution for the acquisition of lands for Low Income Group Housing Scheme, and, accordingly, submitted a requisition to the Land Acquisition Officer for acquisition of 10 acres of land in village Mahuli in the district of Patna. A copy of the said letter sent to the District Land Acquisition Officer to that effect is Annexure-3.

(3.) However, 8.72 acres of land was notified and acquired by the State Government. Copies of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and declaration under Section 6 are An-nexures 4 and 5 to the writ application.

(4.) The Government in the Housing Department by letter dated 29-10-1957 (Annexure-6) informed the Society that the land had been acquired for Rupees 90,860.37 P., in addition to the aforesaid amount development cost being Rupees 53,939.00 besides the usual rate of interest was payable thereon. The Society was directed to deposit the amount in the treasury under the appropriate head.

(5.) The Society deposited Rs. 75,000/-only. Thereafter, the land having an area of 5.45 acres out of 8.72 acres only was released to the Society. This is indicated by the letters of the Government dated 1-4-1958 and 4-7-1958, Annexures 7 and 8 to the writ application.

(6.) The Society had requested the Government for the transfer of the entire area of land acquired for the Society, excluding the area occupied for the construction of 40 ft. wide road, saying that Rs. 75,000/- already deposited was sufficient as the cost of the total lands. The Society protested the demand of the Government in respect of the cost of the construction of the road. This will be apparent from the letter dated 12-3-58 of the Society to the State Government (Annexure-10 to the writ application).

(7.) The Society repeatedly disputed the demand of the Government for payment of the development cost connected with the construction of the road to the tune of Rs. 1,68,523/- and insisted for allotment of 3.27 acres of land for the amount of Rs. 75,000/- already deposited. On 2-9-1967 the Housing Department directed the Superintending Engineer for transfer of the remaining 3.27 acres of land immediately to the Society on realisation of necessary cost thereof. A cony of said letter is Annexure 12. When the petitioner-Society did not deposit the price of remaining 3.27 acres of land on 28-12-1967 the State Government directed the Society to deposit Rupees 1,68,523/- at an early date so that the remaining land could be transferred. A copy of that letter is Annexure-13. No deposit, however, was made by the Society.

(8.) That in the meantime the Bihar State Housing Board was established for framing and execution of such housing schemes as it may consider necessary and. the assets and liabilities of the Housing Department were transferred to the said Board, including the land in question. On 22-4-1972 a decision was taken by the Board that as the Society did not deposit the amount aforesaid, the 3.27 acres of land aforesaid be used lor construction of houses by the Board. A copy of the said resolution is An-nexure-H to the counter-affidavit.

(9.) On 4-5-1976, the Society requested the District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna to furnish the statement of amount of compensation paid for acquisition of the aforesaid land. By a letter dated 22-6-1976, the District Land Acquisition Officer furnished the details of the cost incurred in acquisition, a copy whereof is Annexure-15.

(10.) The demand of the Government towards the cost of the acquisition of the land together with the development cost has been categorised by the petitioners in their memorandum to the State Government as inflated. Protest was made to the Chairman of the Housing Board with a request for consideration and final disposal of the matter (An-nexure-16).

(11.) The Society protested to the Government of India vide Annexure-17. A request had also been made to the Cooperation Department, Government of Bihar for looking into the matter. A letter had been sent by the Secretary, Co-operation Department to the Secretary, Housing Board making a reference to the grievance of the Society and possibility of allotting 3.27 acres of lands after ascertaining the true state of affairs from the Land Acquisition Officer. The letter is Annexure-19.

(12.) Ultimately on 30-7-1980 by the impugned resolution as contained in Annexure-1 the Board decided for allotment of 2.25 acres of the land to the Samiti, who is respondent No. 4. The present writ application has been filed for the quashing of the same as stated above, and further a prayer has been made for issuance of appropriate writ directing the respondent Housing Board to allot 3.27 acres of land in favour of the Society.

(13.) The following points have been raised in support of the prayer and claim put forward by the petitioners:--

(i) The land in question namely, 8.72 acres of land had been acquired at the instance of the Society and for the Society and that being so, the entire lands had to be allotted to the Society and no portion of the land could have been allotted to any one else including respondent No. 4.

(ii) The Government had insisted to the Board for allotment of the entire portion of the land and that was binding upon the Housing Board and that being so that could not have been ignored and any act contrary to the direction to the Housing Board was not legal and was mala fide and the Board was bound to allot the land to the Society and not to the Samiti on the basis of "promissory estoppel".

(iii) The land in question was acquired exclusively for the purpose of Housing Scheme for the Low Income Group and that being so that could not have been utilised for any other purposes; much less for the respondent number 4, whose members are of the Indian Administrative Service;

(iv) The conduct of the Housing Board in not allotting the land is mala fide in law. (v) The members of respondent No 4 Samiti are the members of the Indian Administrative Service and the Chairman, during whose period, the resolution No. 10 (Annexure-1) had been adopted also happened to be a member of the Indian Administrative Service and that being so, the allotment was mala fide.

(14.) The claim of the petitioners has been resisted by filing counter-affidavit by all the respondents. It has been asserted on behalf of the respondents that the claim of the petitioners that the concerned lands had been acquired for the Society at its instance and at its costs was not correct. In this connection our attention was drawn to the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, copies whereof are Annexures 4 and 5. In my view, this strikes at the root of claim which has been put forward to indicate that a right has accrued upon the petitioners, on account of exclusive acquisition of the land for the Society. The notifications conclusively settle the issue that the lands concerned had been acquired as being required by the Government, at the public expense for public purposes and the public purpose mentioned was for construction of houses for Low Income Groups.

(15.) In addition, there are series of correspondence which are indicative f the fact that the concerned lands had not been acquired at the instance of the Society for their exclusive use as claimed by the Society. A letter dated the 3rd January, 1956, Annexure-D to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 4, the Samiti, is from the Deputy Secretary to the Government, sent to the petitioners in which it has been clearly mentioned as follows:--

"xx xx xx xx Government regret it is not possible to to agree to the request of the Society that Government should acquire the land on behalf of the Society and pro visionally transfer the site to the Society for development and for planning con struction. Under the Low Income Group Housing Scheme, the acquisition of land can take place only on behalf of Government, and Government can sell it to the Society on no profit no loss basis only on realisation of its full value after the land has been fully developed. xx xx xx xx"

(16.) From aforesaid letter dated 1-4-1958 of the Housing Department to the Executive Engineer of the same department (Annexure-7). a copy of which had also been sent to the petitioners it will appear that it had been clearly mentioned that the lands have been acquired by the Housing Department and out of 8.72 acres of lands only 4.36 acres of land had been decided to be transferred in favour of the Society as the Society had deposited Rs. 60,000/- only towards the price of the lands. This letter is significant for the purpose that the transaction in between the Society and the Housing Department regarding the land was that of sale for consideration. In this very letter there is a specific mention of the fact that the remaining area of 4,36 acres of land would be transferred to the Society only when they would deposit the full price of the entire land including the cost of its development.

(17.) Annexure-F to the counter-affidavit of respondent No. 4 (Samiti) is the sanction order on the basis of the budget provision issued by the Housing Department indicating that the concerned lands had been acquired at the cost of the Government for implementing the scheme of Low Income Group housing scheme, for sale after development and nowhere in the sanction order there is any mention of the Society giving slightest indication that either the price had been paid by the Society or the acquisition had been done at the instance of the Society.

(18.) Annexure-G to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 4 (Samiti) is a letter from the Housing department dated 8-3-1957 to the Land Acquisition Officer which will indicate that the possession had been delivered to the Housing Department and not to the the Society. Therefore, on the basis of the documents aforesaid and the facts stated above, it would appear that the assertion of the Society that the concerned lands had been acquired at the instance and exclusively for it is not at all true and correct.

(19.) The next point for consideration on the basis of the submission made on behalf of the Society, is as to whether any right had either accrued to the Society for claiming the entire land exclusively.

(20.) The Housing Department had addressed a letter dated 29-10-1957 to the petitioners which is Annexure-6, to the application saying that the total acquisition cost of the land was Rs. 90,860.37 P and the development cost was Rs. 53,939/-only. Further there was an indication that the price could be increased also, It had also been made clear in that letter that interest was also to be paid. After that, as only Rs. 60,000/- had been deposited as the price of the land, the Housing Department decided to transfer only 4.36 acres of land to the Society and further the remaining area of 4.36 acres of land was to be transferred to the Society only when they had deposited the full price of the entire land including the cost of its development. Consequently, a direction had been given to the Executive Engineer to release only 4.36 acres of land.

(21.) It further appears from Annexure-8, which is a letter dated 4-7-1958 from the Housing Department to the Executive Engineer, Housing Department that the Society had deposited a further sum of Rs. 15,000/- and that being so, a request had been made to the Executive Engineer to release only 1.09 acres of land. A copy of that letter had also been sent to the petitioners. Thus, it would appear that as only Rs. 75,000/- had been deposited towards the price of the land and so, the proportionate area being 4.36 acres plus 1.09 acres had been released to the Society. It would also appear that the allotment of the lands to the Society was by way of sale.

(22.) However, the Society instead of making payment of the full price, raised a dispute claiming the entire land for the price already deposited by the Society. The price of development cost claimed by the Housing Department had been resisted. This fact will be apparent from Annexures 9, 10 and 11 to this writ application, which have been addressed by the petitioners to the different authorities of the Government in the Housing Department. Therefore, it would appear that there was no objection on the part of the Housing Department, to deliver the land claimed by the Society, provided the price was paid. At no stage either the Housing Department or the Board have conceded to the request of the Society to transfer the total land of 8.72 acres for Rs. 75,000/- which had been deposited by the Society in the year 1958. In the aforesaid letter addressed by the Housing Department to the petitioners, dated 28-12-1967 (Annexure-13), it has been clearly stated that the Government had to incur an, expense of Rupees 1,68,523/- for the development of the road and that being so, the society was requested to deposit the price including the development cost as early as possible so that the land may be transferred.

(23.) The Society instead of complying with the request and demand of the Housing Department, disputed the same by sending a letter which is Annexure-14 to the writ application to the Co-operative Minister raising a dispute with regard to the demand. As already pointed out above, the Society had also desired to have details regarding the cost of the acquisition of the land and also the enhancement made in the price by virtue of award by the Civil Courts. The District Land Acquisition Officer had sent a letter to the Society (Annexure-15) clearly stating therein the cost of acquisition and also the enhancement of the price by virtue of the award of the Civil Court. The Society instead of being satisfied again raised a dispute and filed a memorandum before the then Chairman which is Annexurc-16 to the application and also agitated the matter before the Government of India by sending a telegram vide Annexure-17 to the writ application. It appears that the Government of India had simply referred back the letter to the State Government for its consideration. Therefore, from the facts stated above, it will appear that all the details of the price of the land had been made known to the Society since the very beginning and repeatedly the Society was asked to deposit the price for the remaining portion of the land and only thereafter the land could have been transferred to the Society but the Society instead of paying the price had raised uncalled for disputes. In my opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no option for the Society, but to deposit the price of the remaining portion of the land and only after the deposit of the consideration money, which cannot be said to be either unreasonable or unjust or illegal, the remaining portion of the land could have been transferred to the Society.

(24.) I will next consider the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners as to whether any right had acquired to the petitioners for the remaining portion of the land which can be enforced by this writ application.

(25.) The acquisition of the land for the Low Income Group Housing Scheme, cannot be recognised as vesting any right in the Society, if there has been failure on their part to perform the most essential condition of the transaction, i. e. the payment of the price. A right of ownership could have arisen only when the price would have been paid and in absence of that, no claim can be said to have accrued. Duty could have been on the part of the Government for the delivery of the land only when the petitioners had a corresponding right for delivery of the concerned land, without any condition and there being no such right as the petitioners were required to pay the price, there could not have been any duty upon the concerned authorities to deliver the land. In order to enforce some right, there must be a legal right. In the instant case, no case has been made out that the concerned authorities had refused to exercise the statutory power for grant of the portion of the lands to the petitioners.

(26.) It has been rightly argued by Mr. R. B. Mahto, Additional Advocate-General, appearing on behalf of the State that there being no concluded contract whatsoever, the petitioners have absolutely no right for the remaining portion of the concerned land. In my opinion, in order to have a concluded contract, numerous acts are the requirements of law. In the instant case, if it was a case of sale, there could not have been a con-eluded contract, in absence of the payment of the consideration money which had been repeatedly demanded by the authorities concerned. The failure on the part of the petitioners to deposit the amount has given absolutely no right whatsoever which is enforceable in law.

(27.) The contention that the land in question was acquired exclusively for the purpose of the Housing Scheme for the Low Income Group and that being so, that could not have been utilised for any other purposes, much less allotment to respondent No. 4 whose members are the members of the Indian Administrative Service are being considered together. It will appear from Annexures 4 and 5, mentioned above, that the land had been acquired for public purposes for construction of houses for Low Income Groups, The requirement for the acquisition was apparently for public purpose. Definitely housing schemes are public purposes. Section 2 (12) of the Bihar State Housing Board Ordinance, 1980 (hereinafter called the Ordinance) defines housing or improvement scheme. It reads as follows:-- "(12) Housing or improvement scheme means a scheme framed under this Ordinance and includes any one of the types of schemes referred to in Section 28." Section 28 of the Ordinance indicates types of schemes and it will appear that in addition to the Low Income Group Housing Scheme, various other Housing Schemes have also been mentioned, namely, the Middle Income Group Housing Scheme, the Rental Housing Scheme etc.

(28.) The land in question had been acquired some time in the year 1956 and in spite of repeated offers made to the Society, the matter lingered considerably as the Society adopted indifferent attitude. No other Society representing Low Income Group came forward for purchase of the lands concerned. The Society was not prepared to take surplus land on the terms and conditions put forward by the Housing Department. At one stage in the year 1972, the Housing Board had taken a decision to construct its office building by utilising the concerned land. This will be apparent from Boards resolution No. 9 dated 22-4-1972. The resolution is Annexure-H annexed to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 4 (Samiti). However, for certain reasons the Housing Board abandoned the scheme of construction of its office and consequently the excess land remained unutilised. The Samiti (respondent No. 4) approached the Board through an application dated 10-4-1980 and also dated 16-6-1980 for the settlement of the land concerned. After going through all the procedures and in accordance with law, the Board settled 86.58 kathas of land corresponding to 1,17,835 sq. ft. on consideration of a sum of Rs. 6,39,500/- with the Samiti and the Samiti readily agreed to make the payment. As a matter of fact, the Samiti has already deposited Rs. 1,60,000/-on account of the Bihar State Housing Board and has further undertook to pay the balance amount as required and demanded. Consequently, an order of allotment was communicated to the Samiti through letter No. 6021 dated 31-7-1980 which is Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Samiti. It appears that a registered agreement of lease has also been executed for the concerned land. The agreement of lease is Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 4 (Samiti).

(29.) That being so, since no right had accrued to the Society, it is not open to the Society to question the settlement with the Samiti in view of the fact that the land acquired sometime in the year 1956 continued to remain unutilised till 1980 and more particularly when the lands concerned have been transferred for rupees six lacs and odd. Simply because the members of the Samiti are of Indian Administrative Service, that will not make the transfer either invalid or illegal.

(30.) Even if the acquisition had been for the Low Income Group Housing Scheme, the transfer in favour of the Samiti can never be said to be either illegal or mala fide, because the transfer to the Samiti is also for public purposes. In the case of Gulam Mustafa v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1977 SC 448 [LQ/SC/1975/356] ) it has been laid down that if the land is acquired for public purposes and when there be excess land and if the acquisition is valid, the excess land could be diverted to a public purpose, other than the one as stated.

(31.) The next point raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the Government has insisted for allotment of the entire portion of the land and that was binding upon the Housing Board as laid down under Section 109 of the Ordinance and that being so, that could not have been ignored and any act contrary to that direction was not legal. It is not correct to say as claimed by the petitioners that there has been any direction of the Government as contemplated under Section 109 of the Ordinance for the allotment of the concerned land to the Society. It would appear from the facts stated above that it was a case of sale with the Society. The proportionate land had been released against the payment of the price. There was clear direction in the letter issued by the State Government that the remaining land should be released only when the price for that was paid or deposited, Annexures 7, 12 and 19 to the writ application can never be said to be a mandate from the Government for the settlement of the concerned land with the Society without payment of price. It would appear that in An-nexure-7, which is a letter from the Housing Department to the Executive Engineer, Housing Department, a clear statement has been made that "the remaining area of 4.36 acres of land will be transferred to them only when they have deposited the full price of the entire land including the cost of its development. "Annexure-l2 is again a letter from the Housing Department to the Superintending Engineer and in that letter there is also a clear statement that the lands would be given to the Society after realising the required price. Accordingly, this claim of the Society cannot be said to be either factually correct or legally valid.

(32.) Annexure-19 is letter from the Co-operative Department to the Housing Board. From perusal of this letter, it would appear that the Co-operative Department had simply desired to have some information regarding the settlement of land with the Society. Further it will appear that this letter had been written on the basis of the facts represented by the Society. It has already been pointed out above that the Society has always proceeded on wrong assumption that it had become entitled for the land without paying the price for the same. No unqualified communication had ever been issued by the Government in the shape of any direction whatsoever for the allotment of the concerned land to the Society unconditionally and without payment of the price.

(33.) It would appear that for about 24 years the Society completely ignored to deposit the price and that being so, it reflects that the Society had absolutely no intention to take the land at all. It would also appear that the land had been offered for settlement at no profit no loss basis. It is never the case of the Society that the respondent Housing Department or the Board had intended to make profit out of this transaction. In this view of the matter, when the land has been offered on no profit and no loss basis, the dispute raised by the Society is both unreasonable and untenable.

(34.) In the facts and circumstances of this case, there cannot be any question of promissory estoppel applicable in favour of the Society. The transaction as stated above, is purely that of sale and purchase. No agreement or concluded contract had been entered into between the parties. On the contrary, any offer for settlement of the land was on the condition of the payment of the price. As such, the principle of promissory estoppel is not attracted. The decision of the Board which is being challenged is also not against principles of natural justice. In my opinion, the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners regarding breach of the principles of natural justice is not at all consistent with the facts of this case.

(35.) In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the cases cited on behalf of the petitioners, namely A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India (AIR 1970 SC 150 [LQ/SC/1969/201] ). The D. F. O., South Kheri v. Ram Sanehi Singh (AIR 1973 SC 205 [LQ/SC/1970/7] ) and State of Punjab v. K. R. Erry and Sob-hag Rai Mehta (AIR 1973 SC 834 [LQ/SC/1972/462] ) are not applicable.

(36.) Similarly, since it has been held that there was no question of promissory estoppel, the decisions cited on behalf of the petitioners in the cases of the Union of India v. Anglo Afghan Agencies (AIR 1968 SC 718 [LQ/SC/1967/339] ) : Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U. P. (AIR 1979 SC 621 [LQ/SC/1978/389] ). Bhim Singh v. State of Haryana (AIR 1980 SC 768 [LQ/SC/1979/297] ) and Jit Ram Shiv Kumar v. State of Haryana (AIR 1980 SC 1285 [LQ/SC/1980/191] ) are not at all applicable to the facts of this case.

(37.) In the result, I do not find any merit in this application which fails and is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.