JUDGMENT.-The plaintiffs are the appellants in this second appeal. The suit was laid for specific performance of the contract directing the defendant to issue an order of assignment of the suit property to the plaintiffs or in the alternative for grant of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to issue an order assigning the suit property to the plaintiffs. 2. In the plaint, it is stated as follows:-The plaintiffs are the owners of T.S. No. 577, in Tirupur Municipality and it abuts Vallipalayam Road situate in T. S. Nos. 576 and 579. In or about, 1935, the first plaintiff’s husband’s father constructed a rice mill and a theatre in T.S. No. 577 after obtaining the necessary approval of the Tirupur Municipal Council. It is only seven years thereafter that the Municipal Authorities issued a notice stating that there has been an encroachment of the adjoining road poramboke in T.S. Nos. 576 and 579 to an extent of 6000 sq. ft. An offer was made by him to buy the encroached area on payment of the market value. The area which was sought to be purchased is shown as A, B, D, C and B, E, D, F in the topo sketch filed along with the plaint. In or about, 1946, negotiations were initiated with the Government and the Board of Revenue, Madras by its proceedings dated 24th December, 1946, approved the proposal of the District Collector, Coimbatore to agree with the request for assignment of the encroached portions in favour of the plaintiffs’ family subject to the following conditions, that the assignee should pay the market value of the encroached portion and continue to pay the annual ground rent leviable thereon, (2) he should surrender a portion of the patta lands i.e., 242 sq. ft., in R.S. No. 577/2 shown as H.A.M. in the plan Exhibit B-1, and he should also surrender a part of the encroached portion itself as shown in AKL in Exhibit B-l, so that the road may be straightened. Tirupur Municipality also passed a resolution on 14th July, 1947 (Exhibit A-13) giving its consent for assigning encroached portions. The District Collector by his proceedings dated 5th August, 1953 fixed the market value at rupee one per square foot. Tirupur Municipality also passed a resolution on 14th July, 1947 (Exhibit A-13) giving its consent for assigning encroached portions. The District Collector by his proceedings dated 5th August, 1953 fixed the market value at rupee one per square foot. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiffs’ family preferred an appeal under Exhibit A-4 to the Board of Revenue asking for the fixation of value at four annas per sq. ft., as recommended by the Revenue Inspector. But it was rejected under Exhibit A-15 dated 8th January, 1954 and thereafter the plaintiffs’ family presented a petition dated 15th January, 1954 to the District Collector agreeing to pay at the rate prescribed by the Government. Hence, by order dated 25th April, 1954 (Exhibit A-17), the District Collector directed the Tahsildar, Tiruppur to submit transfer and assignment proposals after collecting the market value which came to about Rs. 6,000. On 24th July, 1961 the first plaintiff’s husband paid the entire amount under chalan Nos. 1453 and 1454 and sent them to the office of the Tahsildar, Tiruppur on 28th July, 1961. Thereafter the Tahsildar issued summons to him on 5th November, 1961 in connection with the assignment of the site and a statement was given by him. At that stage what remained to be done was the issue of an order of assignment to be made in the prescribed form under the Board’s Standing Order. But, inspite of approaching the Revenue Inspector several times, only on 29th July, 1965, he was directed to appear before him in connection with the lease of the site. He appeared and expressed his desire, and later on, he heard that in G.O. Mse. No. 250 RLV, dated 1st February, 1964, the Government has approved the proposal of the Board of Revenue for leasing the site to him. He asked for a copy of the order. But it was refused to be furnished by the Tahsildar. The first plaintiff’s husband died on 28th November, 1967 and thereafter the plaintiffs filed a petition to the Government on 29th January, 1968 praying for the issue of an order of assignment. But it was rejected on 14th March, 1968. He asked for a copy of the order. But it was refused to be furnished by the Tahsildar. The first plaintiff’s husband died on 28th November, 1967 and thereafter the plaintiffs filed a petition to the Government on 29th January, 1968 praying for the issue of an order of assignment. But it was rejected on 14th March, 1968. It is at this stage, the suit has been laid on the plea that a binding contract had been created and the first plaintiff’s husband had performed his part of the contract by paying the price and handing over possession of his property and therefore the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of specific performance as prayed for in the plaint.. 3. The defendant-State would state in the written statement that T.S. No. 576 of Tiruppur town measures 35,270 sq. ft. and is registered in the revenue accounts as extension road poramboke. T.S. No. 579 measuring one acre and 5,192 sq. ft. is classified as road poramboke. An extent of 3,324 sq. ft. in T.S. No. 576 and another extent of 2,676 sq. ft. in T.S. No. 579 making in all 6,000 sq. ft. was under the unauthorised occupation and encroachment of the plaintiffs’ family. When the encroachment was detected, the first plaintiff’s husband applied for assignment. It is true that in B.P. No. 6743, dated 24th December, 1946, the Board of Revenue has approved the proposal to assign the portions marked in the sketch, dated 26th June, 1946 in favour of the encroacher provided he was willing to pay the market value and surrender an extent of 242 sq. ft. of his patta lands, and an encroachment area marked as AKL. It is also admitted that subsequent to the order of the Board, he had surrendered his patta lands of an extent of 242 sq. ft. and has also deposited the entire amount of Rs. 6,000. But he did not surrender the encroached portion. AKL as required in the said proceedings. At this stage, the Commissioner of Land. Revenue inspected the site on 10th June, 1963 and found that one of the conditions had not been complied with and therefore he considered that the area should be leased out instead of being assigned since there was scope for widening of the road. AKL as required in the said proceedings. At this stage, the Commissioner of Land. Revenue inspected the site on 10th June, 1963 and found that one of the conditions had not been complied with and therefore he considered that the area should be leased out instead of being assigned since there was scope for widening of the road. On his report the Government passed B.P. No. 1213, dated 4th July, 1963 and modified its previous orders and directed that the area may be leased out for five years subject to payment of lease rents at 20 p. per sq. ft. per annum which will be revisable once in five years. In G.O.Ms. No. 250, dated 1st February, 1964, the recommendations of the Board of Revenue were accepted. The Government has the prerogative right to cancel or modify any orders of the Board of Revenue in the matter of assignment of Government lands. The first plaintiff’s husband did not comply with all the conditions stipulated by the Board of Revenue. No binding contract had been created. There is no question of enforcement of duty on the part of the Government arises. The claim for specific performance is misconceived. 4. The trial Court held, though the suit was filed in time, they will not be entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for, but they will be entitled to get back the amount of Rs. 6,000. Regarding 242 sq. ft. of their patta lands marked as HAM in the sketch, no relief can be given in this suit, and they may file a separate suit for the same. The trial Court also directed that the defendant must pay the costs of the suit. Though in the suit, no claim was made for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,000 on equitable grounds, it has granted a decree for the amount of Rs. 6,000 with costs of the institution fees of the suit alone. As against this decision, the plaintiffs and also the State of Madras preferred separate appeals. The appeal by the State was restricted to the cost of Rs. 452 awarded in the suit. 5. The lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs and allowed the appeal by the State. Aggrieved by this, the plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal. 6. The appeal by the State was restricted to the cost of Rs. 452 awarded in the suit. 5. The lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs and allowed the appeal by the State. Aggrieved by this, the plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal. 6. The narration of facts as stated above and as contained in the judgments of the Courts below, would clearly show that it had taken twenty-two years for the State to decide as to what should be done on a decision taken by the Board of Revenue in B.P. No. 6743, dated 24th December, 1946. The counsel for the appellants contends that the plaintiffs are entitled to ask for specific performance as prayed for, because on the assurances given by the State, the first plaintiff’s husband had complied with the necessary conditions and thereafter it would not be open to the State to resile from its promises or assurances, even though it may be a matter of assignment. An assignment simpliciter is in the discretion of the State. He does not dispute this proposition. But he would emphasise the fact that in this case a stage had come when the discretion had been exercised and a decision had been taken and terms and conditions have been stipulated and further it had compelled the citizen to part with the market value and also with his patta lands in the hope that the Government would perform its part of the agreed terms. Hence in such circumstances, specific performance could be asked for as against the Government. 7. It is not disputed by the State that B.P. No. 6743, dated 24th December, 1946, the proposals made by the District Collector were approved and the Collector was asked to assign the portions of the land marked in the sketch, dated 26th June, 1946. A copy of these proceedings has not been produced, by the State. But its contents about the proposals made by the Collector are not disputed. One Marimuthu had encroached upon an extent of 6,000 sq. ft. But the Municipal Council, Tirupur itself by two resolutions bearing Nos. 269, dated 14th July, 1947 and No. 145, dated 6th June, 1962 had given its consent that the encroached area may be given to him for market value. One Marimuthu had encroached upon an extent of 6,000 sq. ft. But the Municipal Council, Tirupur itself by two resolutions bearing Nos. 269, dated 14th July, 1947 and No. 145, dated 6th June, 1962 had given its consent that the encroached area may be given to him for market value. Necessary notices were published about the proposed assignment and no objections either by the village officers or from the members of the public were received. It is after complying, with all the formalities that the Tahsildar, Tirupur issued notice, dated 21st July, 1961 calling upon Marimuthu to deposit Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 3.72 for cost of the survey stones. He deposited the amount on 24th July, 1961 and the chalans were sent to the Tahsildar, Tirupur on 28th July, 1961. He was directed to appear before the Tahsildar on 5th November, 1961 in connection with the assignment of the site. In the meanwhile, he has also handed over his patta lands in 1952 itself, to the extent of 242 “ sq. ft. marked as HAM in Exhibit B-l. It is the contention of the State that three conditions were stipulated ire Board’s proceedings, dated 24th December, 1946 and Marimuthu had complied” with two of the conditions in full. But he had not complied with the other condition relating to surrender of a meagre extent of the land encroached marked as AKL in Exhibit B-l. Since, this was not complied with by him, it is contended, that the State is not bound to assign the lands as it agreed to in 1946. 8. The counsel for the appellants refers to Exhibit A-19, dated 5th September, 1961 in which Marimuthu had stated that this portion of the land had’ not been handed over because he had constructed a cycle and compound wall and this area is required for the theatre and therefore patta may be given inclusive of that extent. He has also not stated that he would not comply with condition No. 3. He has used the expression Therefore in 1961 when he pleaded for inclusion of this area also in the patta, nothing prevented the State from immediately informing him that it would not grant the assignment on account of the failure of the plaintiffs to hand over this small strip of land and on that ground it could have returned the amount of Rs. 6,000 deposited by him and also his patta lands of the extent of 242 sq. ft., which he had delivered in 1952 itself. 9. The so-called third condition, on a careful analysis, would show that it is not a term which should depend upon his volition alone. Of the terms prescribed to be complied with before the assignment is to be made, the first term relates to payment of the market value of the lands as fixed by the State. No doubt he asked for a lesser value being fixed, but ultimately succumbed to the demand made by the State and also paid the amount on 24th July, 1961 itself. Regarding handing over of an extent of 242 sq. ft. of his patta lands, he had demolished the compound walls erected by him and reconstructed the walls as required by the State and parted with his patta lands, without any value being paid by the State. 10. The third condition relates to a meagre extent of the encroached land being given up. The very fact that the area covered by the third condition is in the encroached lands, and even if Marimuthu does not hand over the portion, the State can take forcible possession of the land under the Land Encroachment Act and need not look for his compliance. Exhibit A-19 itself shows that he had not refused to comply with condition No. 3. He has only again pleaded that he, may be permitted to retain the portion of the lands. Hence, it cannot be said that he has not complied with the third condition in the manner in which it can be said about conditions 1 and 2 stipulated by the Board of Revenue. In my opinion, since the first two conditions were complied with, and when his request under Exhibit A-19 was found not acceptable to the State, thereafter it was clearly left to the State to take over its lands covered by the portion marked as AKL in Exhibit B-1 and proceed further to complete the assignment proceedings, particularly when it is also in evidence that after receipt of Exhibit A-19, he had not been informed that his request had been rejected. The amount of Rs. The amount of Rs. 6,000 paid by him and his patta lands were not returned, thus evidencing that State knew that it need not wait for him to do, what it can do and take over its own lands. It was only on such realisation of its powers to get the third stipulation satisfied, the petitioner Marimuthu was asked to appear before the Tahsildar two months thereafter on 5th November, 1961, in connection with the assignment of the site. It is long thereafter in 1963 the Commissioner of Land Revenue inspected the site on 10th June, 1963 and a fresh decision was taken to lease out the area to the plaintiffs’ family. Hence, it cannot be said that Marimuthu had not complied with all the conditions which he had to do and as stipulated by the Board of Revenue. As far as the third condition was concerned, as already stated, it was not dependent on the volition of Marimuthu and after he complied with conditions 1 and 2, the State was armed with sufficient powers to take over the portion of the land covered by the third condition and which belongs to it. This being so, it has to be taken that the plaintiffs family had complied with the conditions stipulated in Board’s proceedings, dated 24th December, 1944. 11. The next point is whether the State is bound to assign the lands once a decision is taken by the Board of Revenue or Government in favour of an assignee. 12. The counsel for the appellants relies on the Division Bench decision reported in Chakravarthy v. Thillaimoorthy1. It is stated therein that: "The Government has made an order of assignment in favour of Manicka Naicker, the father of the first respondent Thillaimoorthy and directed the Collector of Chingleput to give effect to the order by evicting Chakravarthi Naicker from the land. The counsel for the appellants relies on the Division Bench decision reported in Chakravarthy v. Thillaimoorthy1. It is stated therein that: "The Government has made an order of assignment in favour of Manicka Naicker, the father of the first respondent Thillaimoorthy and directed the Collector of Chingleput to give effect to the order by evicting Chakravarthi Naicker from the land. By virtue of the said order Manicka Naicker has acquired some rights in the land and the principles of natural justice require that his rights should not be affected adversely without his being heard and except on legal grounds such as those contemplated in Board’s Standing Order 15, Paragraph 18." Therefore it is pleaded that once the assignment proceedings come to the stage of issue of the formal orders of patta, the assignee gets a right to demand its compliance and in this case, it is not a question of just waiting for the orders of the authorities, but the assignee had been called upon to comply with certain stipulations which he had faithfully complied with and therefore the State is estopped from resiling from its original stand of assigning the lands. In view of the decision of the Division Bench, it cannot be said that in this case, Marimuthu had not acquired certain rights. The only question is, whether in matters of assignment, the State can at any moment decide to cancel its own orders. 13. The Additional Government Pleader refers me to the provisions of the Government Grants Act, 1895 and pleads that the State has got omnipotent power which enables it to cancel its own orders, at its own whims and fancies and a citizen in the position of an assignee has to look to the benevolence of the Government and cannot insist on orders of assignment being enforced by specific performance, till the D patta is issued. This is an argument of extremism. Such contentions have not found favour with the Supreme Court. It is held in The Union of India and others v. Ms. Indo-Afghan Agencies1. "If a party has acted on a representation made by the Government, then the Government shall be bound to carry out its terms, even though, it has not been recorded in the form of a formal contract". Each case has to be appreciated on the facts and circumstances which had resulted in the State extending its assurances and promises. "If a party has acted on a representation made by the Government, then the Government shall be bound to carry out its terms, even though, it has not been recorded in the form of a formal contract". Each case has to be appreciated on the facts and circumstances which had resulted in the State extending its assurances and promises. As already stated, in an assignment simpliciter, the citizen has to necessarily look to the benevolence of the State. But when a stage has come, wherein the Board of Revenue had taken a firm decision and had stipulated certain conditions to be complied with by the assignee and when the citizen had parted with his lands and also money, it cannot be said that still the Government has such an omnipotent power so as to enable it to resile from its own premises and assurance. 14. It is with a sense of remorse, I have to record the following aspects which cannot be overlooked, because the respondent is the State. The decision was taken in 1946 to assign the lands. It took 22 years to decide whether it should be complied with or resiled from. Believing the representations of the State, the patta lands of an extent of 242 sq. ft. of the plaintiffs’ family were handed over to the State even in the year 1952. It appears that till to-day, the patta lands have not been returned to the plaintiffs’ family. No compensation had been paid. It has not been treated even as a lease of lands. Strangely the stand has been taken in the Courts below that the plaintiffs may take separate proceedings to recover the area from whomsoever in possession. It is beyond comprehension as to how such an obstinate attitude can be taken by the State. The next thing is as early as 1961, Marimuthu had deposited the entire market value. No effort had ever been taken to refund this amount to him or to his family. No interest was ever paid. As observed by the lower appellate Court, invoking inherent powers, the trial Court had directed the return of the amount of Rs. 6,000 holding that the State has no justification to retain the amount. During the pendency of this appeal, I adjourned the matter to find out whether the present stand of the Government can be anything different from what had transpired. 6,000 holding that the State has no justification to retain the amount. During the pendency of this appeal, I adjourned the matter to find out whether the present stand of the Government can be anything different from what had transpired. The Additional Government Pleader returns to Court only to refer to the provisions of the Government Grants Act, 1895 which I have already referred to, and no offer came for setting right the injustice which had been faced by the plaintiffs; family during the past thirty years. 15.Citizens, of this State are fortunate that they are never informed annually of otherwise of the number of files pending disposal with Government or in its Subordinate Officers and of the duration taken for deciding petitions filed by citizens. To know that it has taken twenty-two years to draw the final curtain in this matter, may make such of those who have received final orders much earlier, happy, and those who have waited or waiting for longer periods than this, quite jealous of the plaintiffs in this matter. 16. The next aspect relates to the immediate requirement of the lands by the State. Even after the inspection in June, 1963, it has been found that there can be nothing wrong in the plaintiffs enjoying the lands and there was only a possibility of the road being widened arid obviously this suggestion can be relatable only to the immediate needs for the portion marked as AKL, and regarding rest of the extents in distant future. The Municipal Council by two resolutions had agreed for the assignment of these extents to be made. It is not borne out by records produced before me that the entire extent of 6,000 sq. ft. would be definitely required for the formation of the Road. In July, 1961, the Tahsildar, had asked Marimuthu to appear’ before him for completing the assignment proceedings. Therefore the contentions of the counsel for the appellants that the State is estopped from pleading that no enforceable contract had come into existence and hence the appellants are entitled to get the relief as prayed for in the suit, have substance, in view of the Division Bench in Chakravarthi’s case1and that of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. M/s. Indo-Afghan Agencies2. An assignee of this nature cannot be characterised as a person who has not acquired any rights whatsoever. An assignee of this nature cannot be characterised as a person who has not acquired any rights whatsoever. Once it is shown that he has acquired certain rights and that he had complied with the conditions which are subject to his volition and decision, he can ask for relief as against the Government, based upon the decision in Union of India v. Ms. Indo-Afghan Agencies2, wherein it has been held that Courts have the power in appropriate cases to compel authorities to carry out its obligations. 17. The lower Appellate Court had curiously dealt with the matter and proceeded to hold that since the trial Court had adverted to the facts and considered them in proper perspective and held that a concluded and enforceable agreement had not been made out, in view of such findings against the plaintiffs, as a question of fact, he did not deem it necessary to embark on any discussion on the question of law raised in the matter. I do not think that this is a satisfactory manner of disposing of a matter wherein the plaintiffs have raised the point relating to estoppel, and in view of what has been stated above, it ought to have considered the decisions relating to this point. Though, initially, I felt that this is a matter that may be remanded for fresh disposal, already thirty years had elapsed and it would not be advisable to keep the litigation alive and particularly when the point involved relates to the application of the law as laid down by the Supreme Court, I consider that it will be just and proper to grant the necessary reliefs in this appeal itself. 18. Taking into account, the peculiar circumstances of the case and the fact that there was a clear representation made on a firm decision taken by the Board of Revenue as early as 1946, and also of the compliance made by the plaintiffs’ family of the two essential conditions which were within their own volition, and also of the conduct of the Government in retaining the patta lands from 1952 onwards, and the money deposited by Marimuthu from 1961 onwards without paying any compensation either for the lands or interest on the amount deposited, and the subsequent decision of the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 250, dated 1st February, 1964, that the encroached portion may be leased out (though later on this offer is also said to have been resiled), which itself would show that the lands were not required for immediate use of the Government, I come to the conclusion that the appellants-plaintiffs will be entitled to the relief of specific performance of the contract as found in B.P. No. 6473, dated 24th December, 1946 and accepted by appellants, as stated above, and it shall exclude the area marked as AKL in Exhibit B-1. 19. In view of what has been stated above, the second appeal is allowed with costs throughout.