An agreed valuation inclusive of statutory compensation is valid and binding, and the party who has taken benefit under such agreement is estopped from challenging its validity.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred by the claimant appellant against a judgment and decree rejecting the reference made against Collector's award under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

( 2 ) BEFORE we enter into the points raised we would indicate brief outlines of the circumstances under which the order under controversy was made. The appellant who had certain vacant lands offered to the State Government for sale for settlement and rehabilitation of refugees. After several correspondence between the parties and the State the lands so offered were agreed to be acquired. There was further correspondence over the payment of compensation and as a result of several correspondence the appellant agreed to accept the maximum price of Rs. 9,000/- per acre for the acquisition of the land by the State.

( 3 ) AFTER the appellant had agreed to the valuation offered by the Rehabilitation Commissioner, possession of the lands was amicably delivered from time to time on diverse dates between 4th February, 1955 and 13th May, 1955. Thereafter notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was made and published and then followed the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act The Collector thereafter proceeded to make its award on the basis of the agreed rate between the appellant and the State and gave an award of total compensation of Rs. 400663. 53 to the appellants.

( 4 ) THE petitioner then made an application for reference under Section 18 of the Act on 29th October, 1960 claiming only statutory compensation of 15% over the total compensation paid by the Collector and also the interest at the rate of 6%. The matter eventually came up before the Special Land Acquisition Judge who took the view that the acquisition was of a private nature, firstly, and, secondly, there was an agreement between the parties by which the appellant agreed to accept the compensation money inclusive of statutory compensation of 15% as provided in the Act. On the question of interest also the learned Judge found against the appellant and thus rejected the reference. That is how in short the appellant felt aggrieved and preferred the present appeal.

( 5 ) THE principal question that arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant is entitled on the facts of this case to claim any statutory compensation of 15% under the Act. There is no dispute admittedly in this case on the question of valuation but the dispute centres round, firstly, the question whether that valuation actually included this statutory compensation of 15%. Now, in this case it is not disputed that there were certain correspondence between the parties whereby the Relief Rehabilitation Officer offered to pay compensation at the agreed rate which would include the statutory compensation of 15% and this was accepted by the appellant and finally the value of disputed lands was agreed to be paid on the basis of the Deed value inclusive of all the interest of the lands held by the appellant as also 15% statutory compensation. It also appears that the Government directed that 80% of the value might be paid to the appellant agreeing to the said valuation and executing indemnity bonds in respect of the money that may be paid to it. It is also undisputed that this was followed by several documents in the form of agreements and indemnity bonds by the appellant for receiving this compensation money in which there is specific mention of the agreed valuation which included 15% of the statutory compensation. These several documents in the form of agreement and also the indemnity bond appears to have been admitted in evidence Without any objection before the learned judge. The question is, what really is the effect of these agreements and indemnity bonds wherein the appellant specifically agreed to accept the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector inclusive of all the statutory compensation of 15%.

( 6 ) MR. Dastidar learned Advocate for