ORDER: In the writ petition, the petitioner prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to forebear from settling lands in question to any other person other than the petitioner. The fact of the Case, in short, is that the petitioners wert in possession of the lands is question which are salt bearing lands in Contai Sea Coast since 1961. The area under occupation of the petitioners were about 136 18 acres of land. The possession of the petitioners in respect of the lands in question since 1961 is also admitted in the report of the Sub Divisional Land Reforms Officer, Contai dated 3.6.1974 which is Annexure 'W' to the petition. It is alleged that the petitioners have formed a cooperative society and wanted to manufacture salt and for that purpose made an application before the State Government. It appears that the Deputy Director of Industries, Government of West Bengal wrote a letter to the petitioner dated 7.7.70 informing the petitioner that on and from 1.4.70, the Director of Collage and Small Scale Industried, Government of West Bengal had assumed the function of promotion, organisation, technical assistance, guidance, supervision and administration of job including disbursement of fund for Industrial and Ex tension Officer of the Directorate By the letter dated 29/30 1272, the petitioner society was directed to inform about the function and working of the petitioner society. Thereafter the District Industrial Officer, Midnapore requested the Extension Officer, Industrial Ramnagar, Midnapore to pay visit to the office of the petitioners society and to suggest the action to be taken by the authorities concerned in respect of the prayer for settlement of the salt bearing khas land in favour of the petitioners society. Thereafter by the Memo dated 18.12.72, which is Annexure 'F' to the petition, the Additional District Magistrate (L.R.) informed the Sub Divisional Land Reforms Officer that "In enclosing a copy of the letter No 17 Ind dated 3.1.72 together a copy of the schedule of plots the undersigned is directed to request him to kindly send formal proposal for settlement of 925,75 acres of khas land for M/s. Bengal Slit Company Limited for extension of their existing operation. To avoid encroachment of the land proposed to be settled with the company possession may be given to the pending completion of formalities, on payment of the dues fixed by the Collector" Thereafter by the Memo dated 31st May, 1972, which is Annexure 'H' to the petition, the Secretary, Board of Revenue informed the Collector of Midnapore that “Certain Company/person have since represented to the Government that the entire land should not be given in lease to M/s. Bengal Salt Company Ltd. on the ground that the salt bearing land in question is contiguous to their existing factories and some of them are prior applicant in respect of the said lands. It has been decided that pending consideration and decision on the said representation that the land in question may not be finally sell led with M/s. Bengal Salt Company Limited" 2. By the letter dated 4.7.72, the Sub Divisional Land Reforms Officer, Contai, informed the petitioner society that the said authority was gains to inspect the plots in question for the purpose of settlement. By another letter dated 25th April, 1973, the Assistant Secretary, Labour Department, Government of West Bengal addressed to the District Magistrate, Midnapore, that the representation from the petitioner society for allotment of salt bearing land in question on long term basis to the society was forwarded for allotment as might be deemed necessary. By another letter dated 15.5.73, the Inspector of Co-operative Society informed the petitioner society that high level enquiry would be held very soon to consider the allotment of land in question and that the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies desired to meet the representative of the petitioner society on 18.5.73 to consider the prayer for recommendation in this behalf to the appropriate authority Pursuant to the said request the Secretary of the petitioner Society met the said authority and produced the relevant documents and papers Again by another Memo dated 15.5.73, the Sub Divisional Land Reforms Officer, Contai informed the petitioner to meet the said authority on 19.5.73 for the discussion regarding the prayer for settlement of salt bearing land and accordingly the Secretary of the petitioner society met the said authority for the purpose. Thereafter it appears from the order dated 27.5.74 passed in Settlement case in respect of the petitioner society that certain decisions were taken in this matter. Thereafter it appears from the order dated 27.5.74 passed in Settlement case in respect of the petitioner society that certain decisions were taken in this matter. The relevant portion of the said decision and/or order dated 27.5.74 which is Annexure 'N' to the petition is set out below: "The Hon'ble Minister of L. R. & L. U. Department. Shri G. P. Khan is pleased to inspect the salt bearing land of Mouza Sonamukhi and Bainehibenia on 26.5.74. The Hon'ble Minister verbally directed that all salt bearing lands which have been unauthorisedly occupied by private individuals, Co-operative Societies or by salt manufacturing firms must pay licence fee of Rs. 10/- per acre per annum from the date of their possession. The Hon'ble Minister also directed that it would be upto the decision of the main department to allot the lands so unauthorisedly occupied But the state exchequer should not incur loss of government revenue by such unauthorised occupation. Accordingly Amin, Shri Ajit Kumar Maity of Ramnagar is to submit a sketch map showing the plot area unauthorisedly occupied by the Kalindi Dera United Salt Manufacturing Co-operative Society Limited". 3. Thereafter a report was submitted by the SLRO, Contai from which it appears that sub committee members appointed in this behalf visited salt bearing land occupied by the petitioners and/or the reservoir, condensers and salt boilers as well as some brick structures for office buildings of the petitioner society It was admitted that a crusher machine has also been Installed. It appears that as per the report of the Amin, the petitioner society was in possession of 13.1.11 acres of land in that area. In the said report, It was suggested to realise fee, of Rs. 10/- per acre per year without conferring any right and the said report was put up to the main committee to determine whether the said area would allotted to the said society concerned or not. The petitioner society was also granted licence for manufacture of salt under the Central Excise Rules which valid from 3.11.78 to 27.11.90 which is Annexure 'O' to the petition. The petitioner society was also granted licence for manufacture of salt under the Central Excise Rules which valid from 3.11.78 to 27.11.90 which is Annexure 'O' to the petition. Thereafter, the Sub Divisional Officer by the Memo No. 133 dated 13.1.77 which is Annexure 'P' to the petition infomed the petitioner that 'As per the decision in the meeting dated 5.1.77 of the Sub Committee on distribution of salt bearing land, you are requested to form 3 units in all in respect to the salt manufacturing units and let me know the names of three (3) units so that this may be placed before the Sub Committee for consideration and final decision. Official distribution case of this in that salt manufacturing units cannot be considered" Thereafter by Memo No. 330 dated 14.6.77, the J.L.R.O, Balisai informed the petitioner society to appear before the said authority on. 4.7.77 with the relevant documents and the petitioner was also directed to appeal before the J.L.R.O on 14.378. As the matter was being dragged on for an Indefinite period of time and was proceeded with in a most casual manner, the petitioners made various representation to various authorities from time to time to expedite the matter, but the authorities concerned as it appears was sleeping over the matter prejudicially against the petitioner and the petitioners were informed from time to time that the matter was under consideration by the authorities concerned. The petitioner alleged that when the matter was kept pending for several years. the petitioner who on the basis and assurance and encouragements contained in the various letters and representations made huge investment amounting to Rs. 11.55.000/- as set out in paragraph 36 Thereafter the petitioner had come to know from the newspaper that the Central Government had submitted a proposal to the State Government to manufacture salt in the said area by Hindusthan Salt Limited at a cost of Rs. 2 crores and at that stage this unit petition was moved before this Court. 4. The main contention of the petitioner was that the admitted position was that the petitioner was occupying the said land since 1961 which according to the petitioner gained by gradual accession to the holding from the sea bed due to recess of the Sea which the petitioners were occupying. 4. The main contention of the petitioner was that the admitted position was that the petitioner was occupying the said land since 1961 which according to the petitioner gained by gradual accession to the holding from the sea bed due to recess of the Sea which the petitioners were occupying. The petitioner by virtue of s. 12 as it stood prior to the amendment of 1965 became a raiyat in respect of the Said land and that the amendment made in the Land Reforms Act under s. 12 of the said Act has no retrospective effect and in support of his contention relied upon a decision of Salil Kumar Datta. J in Tarapada Hazari & ors v. Revenue Officer & ors. reported in 1919(1) CLJ page 1 wherein it was held that the original s. 12 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. 1955 was never given effect to before its amendment in 1965 which came into force from November 2, 1965 and as such till that date s. 4 of the Bengal Alluvion and Diluvion Regulation, 1925 was applicable to cases of accretion of land by recess of a river or sea Including case of lands formed by silting up of the river bed it self as the amended s. 12 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act was not retrospective in operation. It was next contended that in the facts and circumstances the respondents were bound to settle the said land on the basis of the principles of promissory estoppel. It was also pointed out that the silence and or in action on the part of the respondents had encouraged and induced the petitioner to make such huge investment on the lands in question and in any event the petitioners were in actual and physical possession of this land since 1961 and further for such use and occupation, the respondents reailsed from the petitioners fees at the rate of Rs 10/- per acre per year. 5. In paragraph 43 of the writ petition it was stated that the petitioner's right to alluvion land accrued in 1961 and that the said vested right could not be, taken by the respondent i this behalf i paragraph 17 of the affidavit in opposition it was stated that the petitioner was a mere licensee in respect of the land in question. The case of licence as pleaded by the respondents as it appears had no actual of factual basis in view of the demand made by the respondents in Annexure 'W' to the petition that some of the petitioners had been possessing the said land from 1961 and that for such occupation of the land it was proposed to realise licence fee from the petitioners. Mere proposal for realisation of licence fee and acceptance thereof by the respondents unilerally without nothing more cannot be taken to be a case of licence granted by the State in favour of the petitioners and/or the petitioners were occupying the same as mere licence. The claim of the petitioners that the petitioners were occupying the land which were adjacent to their land and which was gained by gradual recess of the sea had not been denied or disputed by the respondents at all and as such the case of the Respondents that the petitioners were possessing the land as licencee could not be accepted. 6. The claim of the petitioners that they became rayati in respect of the land which was galned by gradual accretion of land by recess of the sea not having been denied it must be held that the petitioners acquired a right in respect of the said land as a raiyat and the amendment of s. 12 of the Land Reforms Act which was made in the year 1965 had not been given retrospective effect and in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Tarapada Hazari & ors. v. Revenue Officer reported in 1979(1) Calcutta Law Journal page 1, the petitioners contentions must be upheld had I respectfully agree with the aforesaid decision of this Court in this behalf. 7. Now turning to the next contention of the petitioner that on the question of promissory estoppel. it appears that promissory estoppel and/or acquiescence by silence and inaction on the part of the respondents in the matter. It appears that in the instant case no positive representation was made by the respondents to the petitioner, But it appears that the petitioners had made large investment on the land in question necessary for the purpose of carrying out salt manufacturing operation. It appears that in the instant case no positive representation was made by the respondents to the petitioner, But it appears that the petitioners had made large investment on the land in question necessary for the purpose of carrying out salt manufacturing operation. The petitioner had acted to their prejudice not on the basis of any representation and as such in the instant case, the respondents, as it appears, sitting over the matter from 1972 i e. for last 13/14 years and the respondents, as it appears, could not and did not take any decision in the matter whatsoever either granting or refusing the settlement of the land in question for the purpose. The admitted fact is that the petitioners were in possession of the land in question since 1961 and that the purported settlement in favour of M/s Bengal Salt Company was kept In abeyance since 1972 on the ground that there were some prior applicants in respect of the said land in question and that it was decided that pending consideration and decision on the pending applications, the said lands should not be settled in favour of M/s. Bengal Salt Company Limited When it was decided to settle the land and after the land was settled, in that event, not only the Slate Exchequer have been benefited on account of revenue, the settlee of the land in question could have also set up the salt manufacturing factory and further that would have helped the economy of this country by increasing production of salt which is a very essential commodity. 'Estoppel on Representation' have been defined by Spencer Bower and Turner in the book ‘The Law Relating to Estoppel by Representation" as follows:- "From a careful scrutiny and collection of the various judicial pronouncement on the subject, of which no single one is, or was per haps intended to be quite adequate, and many are incorrect, redundant, or slipshod in expression, the following general statement of the doctrine of estoppel by representation emerges: Where one person (the representor) has made a representation to anther person (the representee) in words or by acts or conduct, or (being under a duty to the representee to speak or act) by silence or Inaction, with the intention (actual or presumptive) and with the result, of inducing the representee on the faith of such representation to alter his position to his detriment, the representor, in any litigation, which may afterwards take place between him and the representee, is estopped, as against the representee, from making, or establish by evidence, any averment substantially at variance with his former representation, if the representee at the proper time and in the proper manner objects thereto." (See paragraph 3 page 4) At paragraph 55 page 48 of the said book on Estoppel it was provided that: "It is well established that under certain conditions silence or inaction may constitute a representation, as much as positive language or conduct, for the purpose of an estoppel 'Encouragement' or 'acquiescence' may also provide foundation for estoppel under certain circumstances and this principle has been stated at paragraph 290 at page 283 of the said Book ‘Law relating to Estoppel' as follows:- "Where A has a right or title which B is in fact infringing under a mistaken belief that his acts are not acts of infringement at all, and A is aware of his own title or light and also aware of B's invasion of that title or right, and of his erroneous belief that he Ii not encroaching thereon but is lawfully exercising rights of his own; and yet, with that knowledge, also conducts himself, or so abstain from objection protest, warning, or action, as to foster and maintain the delusion under which he knows that B is labouring and induce B to act to his prejudice on the faith of the acknowledgement to be implied from such conduct or inaction, A is not permitted afterwards to assert his own lights against B, or contest B's right against himself. The acts and conduct or the silence and inaction, or both which lead to this legal consequences, have been in some of the authorities described as "encouragement" whilst in others, where passivity 'Lying by' and the purely negative aspect of the party's altitude is more conspicuous than positive action, "acquiescence" has been the term preferred. But whether it be called by either of these names, or is described co nomines as "estoppel" is used in conjunction with, and the equivalent of, "encouragement" or "acquiescence", the rule in question, as will be more exactly demonstrated presently, rests upon the doctrine of estoppel by representation, of which it is a form, instances or application" 8. Lord Cranworth L. C. stated in a case of Ramsden v. Dyson (1866) L. R. 1 H L 129 at page 140 and 141- "If a stranger brings to building in my land, supposing it to be his own and I perceiving his mistake, abstain from setting him right, and leave him to perceiver in his error, a court of equity will not allow me afterwards to assert my title to the land on which he had expended money on the supposition that the land was his own. If considered that when I saw the mistake into he has fallen. It was my duty to be occupant and to set my adverse title and that it would be dishonest in me to remain still impassive on such an action, in order afterwards to profit by mistake which I might have prevented........... But it will be observed that, to raise such an equity two things are required, first, that the person expending money supposes himself to be building on his own land; and secondly, that the real owner at the time of expend thinks that the land belongs to him and oat to the person expending the money in the belief that he is the owner........" 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law on the subject in my view, the respondents by allowing the petitioner to occupy the said land since 1961 and keeping the matter pending from 1972 for settlement of the said land without any rhyme or reason and from time to time asking the petitioner to place records and document and taking into the fact that licence fees were realised from the petitioners, in my view, the principle of estoppel by encouragement or acquiescence is fully applicable in the instant case. If the State Government was aware that the petitioners were trespassers and were in unauthorised occupation of the land since 1961 and not only the State have allowed the petitioners to continue in possession. but fees were realised from the petitioners and at the Instances of the applications, settlements purported to be made with the Bengal Salt Company were kept in abeyance and the petitioners were permitted from time to time to appear before the various authorities with the record and documents, which the petitioners did as a matter of fact and that the lands were meant for settlement for production of salt. In my view, the respondents, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case cannot be allowed to settle the laud in favour of any other person excepting the writ petitioners who were occupying the said land since 1961, and whose c1aim over the said and by the process of gradual accession holding from the recess of the sea could not be denied and/or disputed by the respondents. It was a clear case where there was a failure to perform duty imposed the Statute on the respondents. This is a case, where, it appears to me, because of the laches and negligence and/or gross callous attitude on the part of the respondent, salt bearing lands were allowed to be wasted and there was no reason why the respondents could no take a decision in the matter which resulted not only a loss to the petitioner, but huge loss to the public exchequer. Thus the respondents are solely responsible for bringing about a situation which resulted loss of revenue to the State. 10. Accordingly, I uphold the contentions raised by the petitioners in this behalf and accordingly the writ petition succeeds. Thus the respondents are solely responsible for bringing about a situation which resulted loss of revenue to the State. 10. Accordingly, I uphold the contentions raised by the petitioners in this behalf and accordingly the writ petition succeeds. The rule is made absolute The respondents are directed to settle the land in favour of the 1vnt petitioners with effect flam the date of possession of the said land and to realise rents from the petitioner in accordance with law and to allow the petitioners to set up and continue the salt manufacturing business on the land in question. Let a writ in the nature of Mandamus do issue commanding the respondents to settle the lands in favour of the petitioners in accordance with law in respect of the said lands in question and to allow the petitioners to continue with the salt manufacturing business The rule is made abosolute. Rule made absolute ; direction given.