2009 Supreme(SC) 309

2009(2) Supreme 1
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. Sinha and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.
City Montessori School — Appellant
versus
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1103 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.16109 of 2006)
With
IA No. 6 in Civil Appal No.6747 of 1999
Decided on : 18-02-2009

IMPORTANT POINTS
The Land Acquisition Act being an expropriatory legislation, its provisions must be strictly complied with.
A party consenting to an order cannot be permitted to resile therefrom while retaining the benefit obtained therefrom.

Headnote:(a) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 40 – The Act being an expropriatory legislation, acquisition made at the instance of a company must be done in strict compliance of the provisions contained in the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. (Para 13)

        (2005) 7 SCC 627; (2008) 1 SCC 728 – Relied upon.

        (b) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 48 – Out of the total 23000 sft. of land, Government denotifying only 6000 sft. in which the appellant was interested – The doctrine of acceptance sub-silentio must apply. (Para 19)

        (1981) 1 SCC 80 – Relied upon.

        (c) Judicial Review – When action of a statutory authority is challenged on the ground of mala fide or failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of the statute rendering its decision void and a nullity, the same must be established by the party alleging the same – The court exercising the power of judicial review cannot do so only at the instance of parties who are colluding with each other. (Para 21)

        (d) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 48 – Principles of natural justice had to be followed before issuance of the denotification in view of the order in SLP. (Para 22)

        (1998) 4 SCC 387; (2001) 1 SCC 610 – Relied upon.

        (e) Judicial Review – The Court despite opining that principle of natural justice was required to but not followed, may decline grant of a relief if the same would lead to a useless formality or the person concerned did not suffer any prejudice – It is trite that a party may waive his right of hearing by his conduct. (Para 23)

        (f) Interpretation of Judgment – A judgment rendered by a court of law, particularly a consent order, must not only be construed in its entirety but also having regard to the pleadings and conduct of the parties. (Para 24)

        (2006) 1 SCC 502 – Relied upon.

        (g) Estoppel – Appellant being the beneficiary, not raising any objection on denotification suggesting acceptance thereof – Cannot be allowed to challenge the same – A person cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate at the same time. (Para 26)

        (1956) SCR 451; (1964) 5 SCR 836; (1932-33) 60 Indian Appeals 266 – Relied upon.

        (h) Estoppel – A party consenting to an order cannot be permitted to resile therefrom while retaining the benefit obtained therefrom. (Para 27)

        (2004) 8 SCC 453 – Relied upon.

       Facts of the case :

        1. Appellant runs an educational institution situated at 11, Station Road in the town of Lucknow. The premises belong to one Smt. Urmila Bhalla and Smt. Sheela Kapoor. It measured 23,000 sq. ft. of land. The land together with constructions thereupon measuring about 16,000 sq. ft. was given in tenancy in favour of the appellant. The rest of the area, namely, 6,000 sq. ft. was given in tenancy to Late Mr. N.K. Bhargava (predecessor-in-interest of Respondent No.8).

        2. Allegedly, appellant became a defaulter in payment of rent. A suit for ejectment was filed by the landladies resulting in a decree for eviction passed against it. A first appeal and a second appeal preferred thereagainst were also dismissed.

        3. The school, however, sent a requisition before the State of Uttar Pradesh for acquiring the entire 23,000 sq. ft. of land on or about 22.7.1976. Acquisition proceedings were initiated.

        4. Shri N.K. Bhargawa, predecessor-in-interest of the contesting respondents filed a writ petition challenging the legality and/or validity of the said proceedings. A Division Bench quashed the same,

        5. The landladies were, however, not impleaded as parties in the said writ application. They, in the meanwhile, entered into a settlement with the appellant.

        6. During the pendency of the said special leave petitions filed against the above judgment, the State of Uttar Pradesh issued a notification denotifying the 6,000 square ft. of land in purported exercise of its power under Section 48 of the Act.

        7. Appellant herein filed a writ application questioning the said notification dated 5.11.2004 before the High Court which was dismissed.

       Finding of the Court :

        There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.

       Result : Appeals dismissed.