Petitioner, a company deals in automobile goods and repairing of automobiles. It has a workshop for manufacturing automobile ancillaries. This workshop was installed with modern machinery in the year 1958. It took loan from the Assam Financial Corporation for installation of imported modern machinery. 2. The petitioner company does not have any land of its own? The main shop house and the workshop of the company are situated oil a strip of. J and let out to the company. This leasehold land was found to be quite inadequate for expansion of the business of manufacturing automobile ancillaries. There was a plot of Government waste land under Dag No. 1372 situated contiguous to the land owned by late RK Himat Singka. This plot of land is a part of Saruchalla Beel. This was at the material time very low lying land and unfit for use without proper development entailing enormous cost. 3. On October 7, 1958, Annexure I application was filed by a Director of the petitioner company, Shri GS Himat Singka for settlement of the land measuring 1 bigha 3 kathas in Dag No. 1372 in Saruchalla Beel in favour of the company for industrial purposes. The company filed yet another application on 6.7.59 to the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup and on receipt of the said application the then Deputy Commissioner, after discussion, directed the said Director of the company late RK Himat Singka to surrender a strip of land measuring 14' in breadth on the eastern side of the land owned by him in Dag No. 1382 as it was needed for the purpose of construction of an approach road to the sarkari land under Dag No. 1372 in lieu of the land measuring 1 bigha 3 kathas in favour of the petitioner company. The then Deputy Commissioner asked said Himat Singka to confirm the surrender of a strip of 14' wide land out of his own land as aforesaid. 4. The company also moved a petition before the then Chief Minister of Assam who advised the petitioner company to contact the Industries Department. Accordingly, the petitioner company took up the matter with the Director of Industries. The Director of Industries by Annexure III letter dated 2.3.60 recommended the case to the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue Department for early settlement of the land in favour of the company. 5. Accordingly, the petitioner company took up the matter with the Director of Industries. The Director of Industries by Annexure III letter dated 2.3.60 recommended the case to the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue Department for early settlement of the land in favour of the company. 5. Thereafter, the then Deputy Commissioner personally inspected the site. Petitioner also by letter dated 9.5.60 informed the Director of Industries about it. The Director of Industries informed the petitioner that the department had already taken up the matter with the Deputy Commissioner. Thereafter, the said Director late Himat Singka met the Deputy Commissioner and had discussed about the settlement of the land. The Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup also gave recommendation for settlement of land in favour of the petitioner company by Annexure IV letter dated 11.3.61 to the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue (B) Department. In the said Annexure IV letter the Deputy Commissioner had also written that in addition to 1 bigha 3 kathas 7 lechas of land as prayed for, another plot of 1 katha might be settled with the petitioner company free of cost in view of the fact that the Director of the company late Himat Singka agreed to relinquish 1 katha of land out of his own land covered under Dag No. 1382 for the purpose of construction of the approach road as aforesaid. The petitioner company, thereafter, also informed the Director of Industries about the recommendation made by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup and the Director of Industries also requested the Secretary, Industries Department to take up the matter with the Revenue Department for immediate settlement. Under the facts and circumstances stated above, the petitioner company under the bonafide belief that settlement order would follow in due course, spent a huge amount in developing the low lying waste land and raised valuable structures and also constructed wall thereon with a view to starting the workshop by installing machinery which the company had already imported. For the purpose of importing machinery the company received licence. On the basis of the licence, Assam Financial Corporation also had sanctioned loan. According to the petitioner the investment in respect of this had readhed to a sum of Rs. 2 lacs. All these constructions and improvement of land were made with the consent and knowledge of the authorities concerned including the Gauhati Development Authority. 6. On the basis of the licence, Assam Financial Corporation also had sanctioned loan. According to the petitioner the investment in respect of this had readhed to a sum of Rs. 2 lacs. All these constructions and improvement of land were made with the consent and knowledge of the authorities concerned including the Gauhati Development Authority. 6. Even though the Deputy Commissioner had made the recommendation and other departments had given all the assurance, the settlement was yet to be made. Situated thus, petitioner once again requested the Minister, Industries and the Revenue Secretary for early settlement. The petitioner company received an intimation from the Secretary, Revenue directing that any person of the company should meet him. Accordingly, a meeting was held on 2.5.63 at about 3 PM in the office of the Minister, Industries, Assam which was presided over by the Minister. The Secretary, Industries Department, Chairman, Gauhati Development Authority, Deputy Secretary and Under Secretary of the Revenue Department and the representatives of the petitioner company were present. In the said meeting it was agreed and decided that the settlement of land measuring 1 bigha 4 kathas and 7 lechas would be made on payment of premium as per Government Rules. The minutes of discussion of the said meeting was forwarded by Annexure VI. 7. Meanwhile, at the request of the then Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, another plot of land measuring 1 bigha 3 kathas covered by KP Patta No. 1 (old)/52 (New) at Shantipur area near Pragjotish College, Guwahati standing in the name of late RK Himat Singka was surrendered to the Government for the purpose of construction of road leading to the College. No compensation was paid for the land in view of the settlement of land in question in exchange. In spite of all assurance, agreement and surrender, the authority concerned was yet to give settlement of the land aforesaid. Further representations were made. The Minister, Revenue by Annexure VIII order dated 18.9.76 called for a report from the Deputy Commissioner in respect of the settlement. All these would only indicate that the land would be settled in favour of the petitioner company and thus the petitioner had a bonafide claim for the land in question. Further representations were made. The Minister, Revenue by Annexure VIII order dated 18.9.76 called for a report from the Deputy Commissioner in respect of the settlement. All these would only indicate that the land would be settled in favour of the petitioner company and thus the petitioner had a bonafide claim for the land in question. The petitioner now states that because of the assurance, promise and the surrender of land mentioned above and allowing the petitioner to make improvement of the land for construction of workshop thereon, the petitioner . has a legitimate claim and expectation to get settlement. The petitioner further states that the land in question for which the petitioner sought settlement is a waste land within the meaning of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation and, therefore, can be settled. The petitioner being in possession of the said land and the authority having allowed to improve the land and the petitioner company having surrendered the land has a legitimate right to claim e settlement. But contrary to the assurance given by the State Government and its officials in respect of settlement of the land, the Deputy Commissioner had started an encroachment case (Encroachment Case No. 111/61-62). However, this was dropped when a representation in this regard was filed by the petitioner company. Yet another encroachment case was started in the year 1962-63 which was also dropped. Thereafter, the third encroachment case being No. 13/76-76 was started against the three Directors of the company. This was also dropped after filing of a representation. Thereafter, one more encroachment case being No. 171/1980-81 was started against the Directors of the company. This was challenged in the proceeding before the Board of Revenue in Revenue Appeal No.382/81 and the Board of Revenue by judgment dated 24.12.81 set aside the impugned notice of encroachment issued against the Directors of the petitioner company. Initiation of encroachment cases and then dropping of the same from time to time and lastly judgment of the Board of Revenue setting aside the notices of encroachment only indicate that the encroachment cases were misconceived. The matter did not end there. Yet another encroachment case (26/86) was initiated against the company and others in respect of the aforesaid land and Annexure VIII notice was issued in purported exercise of the power under Rule 18 (3) of the Settlement Rules. The matter did not end there. Yet another encroachment case (26/86) was initiated against the company and others in respect of the aforesaid land and Annexure VIII notice was issued in purported exercise of the power under Rule 18 (3) of the Settlement Rules. Surprisingly in the said notice it was mentioned that the company had been possessing the land without authority. According to the petitioner various authorities of the State Government having promised to give settlement, the petitioner had developed the land, made construction and also surrendered a valuable plot of land belonging to one of the Directors. Therefore, the authority had no right whatsoever to issue such notice. On the other hand the authority is estopped from raising the said question. The land being a waste land and the petitioner having possessed the land for such a long time and the authority having promised to give settlement in lieu of the surrender of land as mentioned above, the petitioner has a legitimate expectation to get the land settled with it. However, it was not done. Hence the present petition. 8. The first and second respondents filed affidavit-in-opposition. In the said affidavit it has been admitted that there was a plot of land measuring 40 bighas 3 kathas covered by Dag No. 1372 of Sarusala Beel of Sahar Guwahati Block No. 2 of Guwahati Mouza. Petitioner and some other persons had been encroaching 7 bighas 1 katha 7 lechas of sarkari land out of the above land without permission of the authority. Accordingly, notice under Rule 18 (3) was issued. It was further specifically stated that the petitioner company had been encroaching 1 bigha 4 kathas 7 lechas out of the aforesaid sarkari land without permission of the authority. The said respondents, however, stated that the official record did not show that any petition was filed by the petitioner for settlement of the land as claimed. There was also no evidence that the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup had ever asked the petitioner or the Director of the company to surrender a strip of land measuring 14' as claimed. Regarding filing of petition before the Chief Minister also the affidavit stated that there was no such record. On the other hand, the said respondents in their affidavit stated that the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup had reported to the Government by letter No. KRS. Regarding filing of petition before the Chief Minister also the affidavit stated that there was no such record. On the other hand, the said respondents in their affidavit stated that the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup had reported to the Government by letter No. KRS. 976/86/68 dated 2.4.87 that the sarkari land of Saruchala Beel was low lying one and it served as reservoir for excess rain water coming from various parts of the city and effluent flowing from Chatribari area. The land had been serving as an essential drainage system for the city. The Deputy Commissioner also reported to the Government that the local public had got objection against the settlement of the concerned land. Regarding almost all other averments the deponents stated that there was no record whatsoever to support the contention of the petitioner company. Respondents 1 and 2 in their affidavit, however, admitted that successive encroachment cases had been instituted. It' was further stated that as per the direction of the Board of Revenue and taking into consideration the public interest involved in this matter the Government came to a decision with regard to settlement of the land to the petitioner company. After consideration the Government rejected the claim. It was further stated that the prayer for settlement was rejected after considering all the aspects of the matter and the objection of the local public. The affidavit further stated that Rule 18 notice was issued and served strictly in accordance with law. According to the said respondents no notice was issued and served on the petitioner on 26.7.88. Only a letter No. KRS. 976/86/3977 dated 26.7.88 was issued to the petitioner informing him the Government decision in respect of the settlement petition and asking the petitioner to vacate the land in pursuance of the Government order dated 6.7.S8. In short, the said respondents stated that all the averments regarding applications for settlement and the letters written by the Deputy Commissioner, Director of Industries and the minutes of discussion, etc. were not borne out of record in view of the fact record did not indicate the same. 9. This writ application was admitted as far back on 27.7.88. From the note sheets of this case it appears that the Government Advocate accepted the notice on or before 29.7.88. were not borne out of record in view of the fact record did not indicate the same. 9. This writ application was admitted as far back on 27.7.88. From the note sheets of this case it appears that the Government Advocate accepted the notice on or before 29.7.88. However, no endeavour was made by the respondents to produce the record in spite of the specific averments made by the petitioner that the various authorities had written recommending the case of the petitioner to the authorities concerned as will appear from the Annexures. Besides, there is also averment that there were minutes of discussion in the meeting held on 2.5.63 in presence of the Minister of Industries and other officials and also order dated 18.9.76 passed by the Minister, Revenue to the Secretary Revenue forwarding the petition and because of the denial of such order, letters of recommendation and other correspondence by the respondents, it becomes necessary to scrutinise the record by the Court to come to a finding. Over and above, in a writ of this nature it is always necessary for the Court to peruse the record before coming to any decision. But no attempt had been made by the respondents for production of the records. Learned Government Advocate Mr. SA Laskar, on the other hand, expressed his inability to produce the record. He also placed a letter dated 20.6.94 written by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue (S) Department to the Senior Government Advocate, Gauhati High Court. By the said letter the Government Advocate was informed that the record was not readily available in the same department. The Deputy Secretary by the said letter requested the Senior Government Advocate to seek time from this Court. This letter was produced before this Court sometime after the 20th of June, 1994. The case was kept part heard since 8.6.94. Thereafter several dates were fixed to enable the Government Advocate to produce the record. Even on 27.6.94 and 28.6.94 the Government Advocate failed to produce the record. Therefore, this Court had to conclude the hearing on 28.6.94. Even thereafter also the respondents did not care to produce the record. 10. Sri Chilarai Barooah, Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam. Thereafter several dates were fixed to enable the Government Advocate to produce the record. Even on 27.6.94 and 28.6.94 the Government Advocate failed to produce the record. Therefore, this Court had to conclude the hearing on 28.6.94. Even thereafter also the respondents did not care to produce the record. 10. Sri Chilarai Barooah, Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam. Revenue (S) Department had sworn the affidavit on 27.6.94 and in the affidavit it was specifically mentioned that the averments made by the petitioner as regards recommendations, minutes of discussion and representations were not borne by record. I fail to understand when in the affidavit sworn on 27.6.94 by the Deputy Secretary it was specifically mentioned that the averments made by the petitioner regarding recommendation, minutes of discussion, etc. were not borne by record, on what basis he had sworn the affidavit, more so, when he himself by letter dated 20.6.94 informed the Government Advocate that the record was not readily available. It may be so that after writing of the letter dated 20.6.94 the record had been traced out and the Deputy Secretary swore the affidavit. If that be so, on the date of filing of the affidavit it was the bounden duty of the respondents to produce the record. In my view, record ought not to have been withheld. This only lead to a conclusion that the statements made in the affidavit are not correct. In view of that I have no other alternative than to accept the averments made in the petition as regards filing of representations by the petitioner, letters written by the Deputy Commissioner and the Director of Industries recommending to give settlement of the land to the petitioner, minutes of discussion held in the meeting on 2.5.63 and the order passed by the Minister, Revenue dated 18.9.76 to be correct. This Civil Rule was admitted as far back as on 27.1.88, but the respondents did not make any endeavour to produce the record. Even the affidavit was not filed in time. The affidavit was filed after the matter was heard in part. The manner in which the case was dealt with indicates a very sorry state of affairs which is not expected from a responsible Government. But then, the Court has to decide on the basis of the materials available before it. 11. Even the affidavit was not filed in time. The affidavit was filed after the matter was heard in part. The manner in which the case was dealt with indicates a very sorry state of affairs which is not expected from a responsible Government. But then, the Court has to decide on the basis of the materials available before it. 11. From the statements made in the petition it clearly appears that the petitioner has been in possession of the land in question since 1958. After recommendations made by the Deputy Commissioner and the Director of Industries, the petitioner improved the land and made constructions. Even the State Government also gave assurance for settlement. On the basis of the assurance and promise the petitioner made improvement of the land by filling up the land with earth as the tend admittedly was a low lying one. At the time of improvement of the land not only the assurance was given by the respondents, no objection was also raised. Construction of factory was made solely relying on the assurance and promise made by the respondents. For making such construction and installation of imported machinery, loan was obtained from the Assam Financial Corporation. The statements made in the petition as well as the Annexures also indicate that the Gauhati Development Authority was a party to giving consent for making the construction. Besides, in pursuance of the assurance the petitioner surrendered a portion of land as stated though the respondents denied in their affidavit. In the absence of record it is not possible for this Court to accept the statements made by the respondents in their affidavit. 12. Mr. Laskar had not been able to make clear this anomalous position in course of his argument in spite of his efforts. He had not been able to put forward a convincing argument in this regard. 13. On the basis of promise and representation by various high officials including the Minister in respect of giving settlement of the land in question (Government waste land) and, therefore, as pej the law, the respondents are estopped from denying the liability. 14. Promissory estoppel being as extension of principle of equity, the basic purpose of which is to promote justice founded on fairness and relieve a promisee of any injustice perpetrated due to promisor's going back on its promise. The promisor shall be bound by the aforesaid promise. 14. Promissory estoppel being as extension of principle of equity, the basic purpose of which is to promote justice founded on fairness and relieve a promisee of any injustice perpetrated due to promisor's going back on its promise. The promisor shall be bound by the aforesaid promise. It is well settled that the law of promissory estoppel furnishes a cause of action to a citizen, enforceable in a Court of law, against Government, if it or its officials in course of their authority extend any promise which creates or is capable of creating legal relationship, and it is acted upon, by the promisee irrespective of any prejudice. What, therefore, requires to be examined, is if any promise was made by the Government or its officials to the petitioner that the petitioner would be settled with the land if a workshop is constructed on the said land and a portion of the land belonging to one of the Directors of the company was surrendered. Acting on such promise the petitioner made improvement of the land, raised construction, obtained loan and surrendered land for the purpose of getting settlement. Now the Government cannot go back on its promise on some plea. 15. After going through the facts, I find the promise of the Govt. as well as its officials are not against the public policy or contrary to any provision of law. Therefore, the Government is estopped from going back to its words. 16. The principle of promissory estoppel is that where one party has by his word or conduct made to the other a clear and unequivocal promise or representation which is intended to create legal relations or affect a legal relationship to arise in the future, knowing or intending that it would be acted upon by the other party to whom the promise or representation is made and it is in fact so acted upon by the other party, the promise or representation would be binding on the party making it and he it would not be entitled to go back upon it, if it would be inequitable to allow him to do so, having regard to the dealings which have taken place between the parties. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is now well established one in the field of Administrative Law. This principle has been evolved by equity to avoid injustice. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is now well established one in the field of Administrative Law. This principle has been evolved by equity to avoid injustice. It is neither in the realm c of contract nor in the realm of estoppel. Its object is to interpose equity shorn of its form to mitigate the rigour of strict law. If the Government seeks to relieve itself from the application of doctrine of promissory estoppel, it is bound to place before the Court the materials, the circumstances or the grounds on which it seeks to resile from the promise made or obligation undertaken by insistence of enforcing the promise, how the public interest would be jeopardised as against the private interest. 17. The land being a waste land and'the petitioner having been in possession of the same for the last several decades and on the basis of assurance given by the authorities concerned the petitioner having improved the land, constructed a workshop and installed imported machinery by obtaining loan. Besides, the petitioner also surrendered a plot of land belonging to one of the Directors. All these, according to the petitioner, gave rise to legitimate expectation to get the settlement of the land. 18. The concept of legitimate expectation operates and provides locus stand! for judicial review. Its denial is a ground for-challenging the action. But denial can be justified by showing some overriding public interest. Denial does not by itself confer an absolute right to claim relief. Grant of relief should be limited. Legitimate expectation may come in various forms and owe their existence to different kind of circumstances and it is not possible to give an exhaustive list in the context of vast and fast expansion of the Governmental activities. By and large they arise in cases of promotions which are in normal course expected, though not guaranteed by way of statutory right, in cases of contracts, distribution of largess by the Government and in somewhat similar situations. (See Union of India vs. Hindustan Develooment Corporation (1993)3 SCC 499). 19. By and large they arise in cases of promotions which are in normal course expected, though not guaranteed by way of statutory right, in cases of contracts, distribution of largess by the Government and in somewhat similar situations. (See Union of India vs. Hindustan Develooment Corporation (1993)3 SCC 499). 19. However, it is also true a mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of a citizen, in such a situation, may not by itself be a distinct enforceable right, but failure to consider and give due weight to it may render a decision arbitrary and this is how the requirement of due consideration of a legitimate expectation forms part of the principle of non-arbitrariness, a necessary concomitant of the rule of law. Every legitimate expectation is a relevant factor requiring due consideration in a fair decision making process. Whether the expectation of the claimant is reasonable or legitimate in the context is a question of fact in each case. Whenever a question arises, it is to be determined not according to the claimant's perception but in larger public interest wherein other more important considerations may outweigh what would otherwise have been the legitimate expectation of the claimant. A bonalide decision of the public authority reached in this manner would satisfy the requirement of non-arbitrariness and with-stand judicial scrutiny. The doctrine of legitimate expectation gets assimilated in the rule of law and operates in our legal system in this manner and to this extent. (See FC1 vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feel Industries, (1993) 1 SCC 71 ). 20. In the instant case, for several decades correspondence went on, enquiries were made and assurance was given to the petitioner that the land would be settled. For several decades nothing was shown to the petitioner that it would not be possible to settle the land as it involved a public interest. However, in paragraph 8 of the affidavit it has been stated by the respondents that the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup had reported to the Government vide letter No. KRS.976/86/68 dated 2.4.87 that the sarkari land of Saruchala Beel was low lying one and served as reservoir of excess rain water coming from various parts of the city and effluent flowing from Chatribari area. The land was serving as an essential drainage system for the city. Deputy Commissioner also reported to the Government that the local public also had objection to the Government's settling the land. The land was serving as an essential drainage system for the city. Deputy Commissioner also reported to the Government that the local public also had objection to the Government's settling the land. In the affidavit it has not been specifically stated on what basis or record the Deputy Commissioner had written the said letter dated 2.4.87. No document whatsoever has also been annexed. I do not find any reason why the land could not be settled with the petitioner though it fulfilled the conditions. The admitted fact is that the land in question was a low lying one at the time when the petitioner company occupied it. After the assurance was given it was filled up with earth. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that this portion of land only serves as a reservoir when Saruchala Beel is a vast areas measuring 40 bighas 3 kathas. Therefore, respondents' attempt to make a public cause, in my opinion, has got no force. As I have already observed, petitioner acted in pursuance of the promise and assurance, spent huge amount, raised construction, installed machinery by taking loan and surrendered a valuable plot of land, therefore, respondents are estopped from going back to its promise or assurance. Besides, all these actions of the petitioner on the basis of the promise has given rise to legitimate expectation to get settlement. In view of all these, I find sufficient force in the submission of Mr. Lahiri, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Accordingly, I allow the petition and direct the respondents to settle the land as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of 2 months from today.