2009 (2) TMI 798 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and a declaration in terms of Section 6 of the Act issued in respect of the entire land measuring 23,000 sq. ft on 6.10.1979 constitutionally valid?

Issues Involved
1. Validity of the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. Locus standi of the appellant to challenge the notification under Section 48 of the Act.
3. Compliance with principles of natural justice in the issuance of the notification under Section 48.
4. The doctrine of approbation and reprobation in the context of consent orders.

Detailed Analysis

1. Validity of the Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
The appellant, an educational institution, faced eviction due to default in rent payment. Subsequently, it sought acquisition of the land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 were issued but later challenged by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. The High Court quashed these notifications, citing that the acquisition did not meet the criteria under Section 40(1)(a) of the Act, which restricts acquisition to purposes directly connected with the provision of amenities for workmen. The court emphasized that the acquisition for school expansion did not fall under this provision, rendering the acquisition unsustainable and thus quashed the notifications.

2. Locus Standi of the Appellant to Challenge the Notification under Section 48 of the Act
The appellant argued it had the locus standi to challenge the notification under Section 48, which denotified 6,000 sq. ft. of the land. The appellant contended that the notification was issued without adherence to principles of natural justice, thus making it a nullity. The High Court dismissed the writ application, and the appellant's claim was that the judgment of the Supreme Court did not indicate any consent or role by the appellant in the issuance of the notification.

3. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice in the Issuance of the Notification under Section 48
The Supreme Court observed that principles of natural justice must be followed before issuing a denotification under Section 48. The court cited precedents like Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. State of Gujarat and State Govt. Houseless Harijan Employees' Association v. State of Karnataka, which mandated an opportunity for the beneficiary of the acquisition to be heard before such a decision. However, the court also noted that the appellant had implicitly consented to the denotification process, evidenced by the lack of protest and the acceptance of the proceedings.

4. The Doctrine of Approbation and Reprobation in the Context of Consent Orders
The court invoked the doctrine of approbation and reprobation, stating that a party cannot accept the benefits of a consent order while simultaneously challenging parts of it. The appellant had accepted the benefits of the order protecting its possession of 17,000 sq. ft. of land. The court held that the appellant's conduct indicated implicit consent to the denotification of 6,000 sq. ft., and thus, it could not challenge the notification while retaining the benefits derived from the consent order.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the appellant could not challenge the denotification while enjoying the benefits of the consent order. The court held that the principles of natural justice were adhered to, given the appellant's implicit consent, and the doctrine of approbation and reprobation applied, preventing the appellant from contesting the notification. The appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.

← Previous Next →