the Rules then even those allotments in favour of other persons will not create a right in the respondents to claim equality with them; may be, if the allotments were made wrongly in favour of those persons, the same may become liable for cancellation, if permissible in law, but that will not create an enforceable right on the respondents to claim similar wrongful allotments in their favour. In our opinion, even this ground relied upon by the High Court as well as the lower appellate court is unsustainable. The courts below next relied upon the fact that in regard to some of the respondents, the Trust itself at a point of time made allotments and accepted initial deposits towards the consideration of the plot which was subsequently cancelled. Based on those facts, the courts below held that the Trust having once allotted the plots and having collected part of the consideration, it could not have cancelled the allotments, probably basing the respondents' case on the principle of promissory estoppel. Here the courts below have failed to notice the legal principle that there is no estoppel against law. The allotment of plots by the Trust is controlled by the statutory Rules. Any allotment contrary to those Rules will be against the law. Since the allotments made in favour of some of the respondents was based on wrong application of the reservation made for "local displaced person" those allotments were contrary to law. Hence, the principle of promissory/equitable estoppel cannot be invoked to protect such illegal allotments. In the said view of the matter, we are unable to sustain the judgments and decrees impugned in these appeals.”
