JUDGMENT Mr. Rajive Bhalla, J.: - The correctness of the opinion recorded in 2001(4) R.C.R.(Civil),25 Smt. Malkhani versus Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, has been called into question. Before we answer the reference, it would be appropriate, to set out, in brief, the facts that have led to the instant reference. 2. The Gram Panchayat, passed resolutions, dated 11.01.1973 and 27.01.1973, selling the land, in dispute, to the petitioners’ father for Rs.6,000/-. The petitioners allege that their father paid this amount and possession was delivered. A mutation of ownership was also sanctioned in his name. The Gram Panchayat, however, did not obtain approval from the Government as required by Rule 12 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’). 3. On 15.01.2003, the Gram Panchayat filed an application under Sections 7 and 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1961 Act’), for eviction of the petitioners. The petitioners set up a defence that as the land was sold to their father, by resolutions passed by the Gram Panchayat, and as it was the Gram Panchayat which was remiss in its duty to obtain prior approval of the Government, it is estopped from alleging that the petitioners are unauthorised occupants of the land in dispute. The Collector and the Commissioner allowed the petition and ordered the petitioners’ eviction. 4. Counsel for the petitioners contends that as is apparent from the facts, the Gram Panchayat resolved to sell its land to the petitioners’ father. The Gram Panchayat, received consideration, delivered possession and mutation was sanctioned. The negligence of the Gram Panchayat in following the procedure prescribed by Rule 12 of the 1964 Rules, i.e., to obtain approval, estopps it from alleging that the petitioners are unauthorised occupants. It is further argued that the controversy is fully covered in favour of the petitioners by the judgment in Smt. Malkhani’s case (supra). It is further contended that as the petitioners’ father came into possession pursuant to a resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat, the petitioners cannot be held to be unauthorised occupants, so as to invite orders of ejectment under Section 7 of the Act. 5. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that a Gram Panchayat cannot sell its land except in accordance with procedure prescribed by Rule 12 of the 1964 Rules. 5. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that a Gram Panchayat cannot sell its land except in accordance with procedure prescribed by Rule 12 of the 1964 Rules. Admittedly, the Gram Panchayat has not followed the procedure prescribed by Rule 12 of the 1964 Rules, particularly in obtaining approval of the Government. The petitioners cannot claim any right, title, or interest in the land in dispute, much less assert that the Gram Panchayat is estopped from alleging that they are unauthorised occupants. The doctrine of estoppel does not operate against statute. The judgment in Smt. Malkhani’s case (supra) does not lay down the correct position in law as even if the Gram Panchayat was negligent in obtaining approval, the doctrine of estoppel cannot be pressed into service to legitimise an illegal sale much less illegal possession obtained in violation of statutory rules, in this case, Rule 12 of the 1964 Rules. 6. We have heard counsel for the parties, perused the reference order, the pleadings, the judgment in Smt. Malkhani’s case (supra) and statutory provisions of the 1961 Act and the 1964 Rules. A relevant extract from the reference reads as follows:- “Rule 12 of the 1964 Rules prescribes a statutory procedure, for sale of Panchayat land and requires the Gram Panchayat to obtain prior approval before it sells its land. The fact that the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution, delivered possession, and accepted consideration, would not confer proprietary rights, upon the petitioners, much less legitimise their possession. If failure of the Gram Panchayat to obtain approval were to estop the Gram Panchayat from alleging that the petitioners are unauthorised occupants, it would, in essence, legitimise their proprietary and possessory rights, even though the sale, is illegal, for violation of Rule 12 of the Rules. The doctrine of estoppel, in our considered opinion, does not operate to legitimise an act that it is not performed in the manner prescribed by statute.” 7. The correctness of the opinion recorded in Smt. Malkhani’s case (supra) has been called into question on the premise that the doctrine of estoppel cannot be invoked to legitimise an act that is contrary to statute and that estoppel cannot be invoked against statute. 8. The correctness of the opinion recorded in Smt. Malkhani’s case (supra) has been called into question on the premise that the doctrine of estoppel cannot be invoked to legitimise an act that is contrary to statute and that estoppel cannot be invoked against statute. 8. The question that requires an answer is whether omission on the part of the Gram Panchayat to obtain approval for sale of its land estopps it from alleging that its vendees are in unauthorised possession. As a necessary corollary we would also have to consider whether the opinion recorded in Smt. Malkhani’s case (supra), is correct. 9. Admittedly, the land, in dispute, was transferred by the Gram Panchayat to the petitioners’ father pursuant to resolutions dated 11.01.1973 and 27.01.1973. It is not denied that the Gram Panchayat did not obtain approval much less previous approval of the Government as required by Rule 12 of the 1964 Rules. The dispute in Smt. Malkhani’s case (supra) is identical on facts and it has been held that as the Gram Panchayat was remiss in its duty to obtain prior approval of the Government, it is estopped from alleging that the petitioners are unauthorised occupants. A relevant extract from the judgment reads as follows:- “6. It is admitted by the counsel for the Gram Panchayat that Paltu and thereafter Smt. Malkhani etc. have been in possession of the land since the year 1971. It is also not disputed that the Gram Panchayat had passed a resolution in the year 1971 for the sale of the land bearing Khasra No.15/14/26 in favour of Paltu. He had constructed a house on this plot and was living in it till November 27, 1994, when he had unfortunately passed away. Still further, it is not disputed that the Panchayat had initiated the proceedings along with respondent No.4 (Sultan) in the year 1993. Thus, the Panchayat had remained quiet for almost 22 years. Despite these facts it is contended that the possession of Paltu etc. had continued to be illegal as the land had been sold without the prior approval of the Government as contemplated under Rule 12 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964. He submits that since the approval had not been obtained, the sale was illegal and the possession had become unauthorised. 7. had continued to be illegal as the land had been sold without the prior approval of the Government as contemplated under Rule 12 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964. He submits that since the approval had not been obtained, the sale was illegal and the possession had become unauthorised. 7. Admittedly, it was the duty of the petitioner Gram Panchayat to seek permission of the competent authority. It is also not disputed that Paltu etc. had paid the price demanded by the Panchayat. Did the Panchayat seek the permission? If any, can it blame the purchasers? There is nothing on record to show as to why the Panchayat had failed to perform its duty. The purchaser acted on the faith and the resolution passed by the Panchayat. He had paid the price therefor. That having happened the Panchayat would be estopped from challenging the validity of the possession of Paltu or his legal representatives. Thus, we find that the view taken by the Assistant Collector, the Collector and the Commissioner calls for no interference. In CWP No. 15804 of 2000, no other argument has been raised. Thus, this petition is dismissed.” 10. A perusal of the judgment reveals that the doctrine of estoppel was invoked against the Gram Panchayat on the premise that the Gram Panchayat was negligent in obtaining statutory approval. We respectfully express our inability to accept the opinion recorded in Smt. Malkhani’s case (supra). 11. A Gram Panchayat holds property, in trust, for and on behalf of inhabitants of a village and shall deal with its property only in accordance with statutory provisions set out in the 1961 Act and the 1964 Rules. Any deviation from the 1961 Act or the 1964 Rules would render transfer of land whether of ownership or possession, null and void. 12. Rule 12 of the 1964 rules, prescribes a mandatory procedure for sale of Gram Panchayat property, and reads as follows:- “12 Purpose for which land may be sold. Any deviation from the 1961 Act or the 1964 Rules would render transfer of land whether of ownership or possession, null and void. 12. Rule 12 of the 1964 rules, prescribes a mandatory procedure for sale of Gram Panchayat property, and reads as follows:- “12 Purpose for which land may be sold. Sections 5 and 15 (2)(f) of the Act -- (1) A Panchayat may, with the previous approval of the Government, sell land in Shamilat Deh vested in it under the Act for:- (i) the purpose of constructing building for Block Samiti Office or any department of or institution recognised by the Government; (ii) the purpose of any industrial or commercial concern; or (iii) executing such a scheme as may be a source of recurring income for the benefit of the inhabitants of the village; (iv) residential purpose of the inhabitants of the village. (v) for the purpose of financing the construction of building for schools and for veterinary and civil dispensaries in the Sabha area. (2) Where it is proposed to sell the land in Shamilat Deh under sub-rule (1), the Panchayat shall forward to Government a copy of its resolution passed by a majority of the three-forth of its members proposing to sell the land through the Panchayat Samiti and Divisional Deputy Director, Panchayati Raj stating-- (a) the area and location of the land proposed for sale; (b) the estimated income from the sale and whether the income would increase, if the land is sold after some years; (c) the reasons as to why the Panchayat wants to sell the land and plans for utilization of the income from the sale. (3) The publicity for sale of land in Shamilat Deh by auction shall be made by the Deputy Commissioner in accordance with the procedure laid down in sub-rule (10) or Rule 6 on receipt of the approval of Government who shall also decide whether the land should be sold in one or more lots and the officer, who should be present at the auction.” 13. Rule 12 of the 1964 Rules requires a Gram Panchayat to obtain approval of the Government before it sells its land. Rule 12 of the 1964 Rules requires a Gram Panchayat to obtain approval of the Government before it sells its land. A sale made by a Gram Panchayat without previous approval of the Government shall be null and void and no amount of acquiescence, negligence or error on the part of a Gram Panchayat shall have the affect of conferring legitimacy upon such a transaction. The question, therefore, is whether in such a situation, the doctrine of estoppel can be invoked against a Gram Panchayat to estop it from alleging that the transaction is null and void and its vendees are unauthorised occupants. 14. The doctrine of estoppel has evolved from the principles of equity and good conscience. The doctrine postulates that where an offer is made and the party receiving the offer, believes the bonafides of the offer and so alters its position, as to render it inequitable and contrary to good conscious to allow the first party to retract from its offer, the first party would be estopped from retracting its offer. Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act incorporates the doctrine of estoppel and enables a party to invoke the doctrine against the party retracting its offer. The doctrine of estoppel has received judicial affirmation in Union of India v. Indo-Afghan Agencies and others, AIR 1986 SC 718 Century Spinning Co. v. Ulhasnagar Municipal Council, AIR 1971 SC 1021 , Radhakrishna v. State of Bihar, AIR 1977 SC 1496 and Moti Lal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1979 SC 621 , duly followed thereafter in a host of binding precedents, namely, Union of India v. Godfray Philips India Ltd., (1995) 4 SCC 369; 1985 Supp. (3) SCR 123; AIR 1986 SC 806 ; Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Union of India and others, (1995) 1 SCC 274 ; Darshan Oil (P) Ltd., v. City and Industrial Development Corporation and another, (1995) 4 SCC 301 ; Shrijee Sales Corporation v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 398 ; Pawan Alloys and Casting (P) Ltd. v. Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board, (1997) 7 SCC 251 . 15. 15. The doctrine of estoppel, however, admits to a significant exception, namely, that estoppel shall not be invoked to defeat a statutory provision or to enable a party to allege that though the offer is contrary to statute, the party making the offer should be held to its offer. The doctrine of estoppel cannot be invoked to legitimise an illegality and enforce an obligation that is contrary to law. A statutory provision cannot yield to the doctrine of estoppel as no one, much less a person who has altered his position, may plead that a statutory provision should be violated so as to protect the offer made to him. The principle that a plea of estoppel cannot be raised to defeat a statute is too well settled for us to discuss any further except to the extent of noticing a few judgments. 1. G.H.C. Ariff v. Jadunath Majumdar Bahadur, AIR 1931 PC 79; 2. Mathra Parshad and Sons v. State of Punjab & ors., AIR 1962 SC 745 ; 3. Rishabh Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1987 SC 1576 ; 1987 (Supp.) SCC 306. 4. Union of India v. R.C. D’Souza, AIR 1987 SC 1172 ; (1987) 2 SCC 211 . 5. Kasinka Trading & anr. v. Union of India & ors., (1995) 1 SCC 274 ; 6. Shabi Construction Co. Ltd. V City and Industrial Development Corporation and another, (1995) 4 SCC 301 ; 7. State of Bihar and ors v. Project Uchcha Vidya, Sikshak Sangh and Ors. (2006) 2 SCC, 545". 16. A perusal of the aforementioned judgments leaves no manner of doubt that where a promise made and acted upon, is contrary to law, the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked to defeat such a provision much less legitimise such an act. 17. An authority dealing with public property, cannot deviate from the statute, rules or instructions that govern transfer of its property. A Gram Panchayat that proposes to transfer its land is required to act in accordance with Rule 12 of the 1964 Rules and any deviation therefrom would render such a transfer as null and void. Even where a Gram Panchayat has by resolution, transferred property, delivered possession and mutation of ownership has been sanctioned, such a transfer, if made in violation of Rule 12 of the Rules, would be null and void. Even where a Gram Panchayat has by resolution, transferred property, delivered possession and mutation of ownership has been sanctioned, such a transfer, if made in violation of Rule 12 of the Rules, would be null and void. To estopp a Gram Panchayat from alleging that its vendees are unauthorised occupants, would, in essence, require a court to ignore Rule 12 and apply the doctrine of estoppel, against statute, in this case against Rule 12 of the 1964 Rules. 18. We, therefore, reiterate that the doctrine of estoppel, cannot be invoked against statute and if a statutory provision requires a public authority to transact its business in a particular manner, any deviation from the manner so prescribed would render such a transaction null and void and would not attract the doctrine of estoppel. The judgment in Smt. Malkhani’s case (supra), has overlooked these principles while holding that the Gram Panchayat is estopped from alleging that the petitioners are unauthorised occupants. 18. We, therefore, answer the reference by holding that if a Gram Panchayat transfers its land without complying with provisions of Rule 12 of the 1964 Rules, the transaction shall be null and void and a Gram Panchayat shall not be estopped from alleging the illegality of such a transfer or the unauthorised possession of such a vendee. The judgment in Smt. Malkhani’s case (supra) with due deference does not lay down the correct position in law and is, therefore, over-ruled. In view of our answer to the reference, we direct the registry to set down the writ petition for hearing as per roster. ---------0.B.S.0------------