A person who has given consent to compensation payment for land acquisition and has received the compensation is estopped from challenging the acquisition proceedings.

M.L.Koul, J.

1. The petitioner Sham Singh who claims himself to be the owner of land measuring 118 Kanals comprised in Khasra Nos. 19/11, 19/12, 19/13, 19/14, 19/15, 19/16, 19/17, 19/18, 19/19, 19/20, 19/21, 19/22, 19/23, 19/24 , and 19/25, situate in village Haibowal Khurd, tehsil and district Ludhiana seeks the quashing of the land acquisition proceedings and the award passed by the Collector with regard to said land constituting a part of 256 Acres of land acquired by the respondents for a development scheme vide notification dated 24.11.1978.

2. According to the petitioner, the land was acquired by the Government by notification issued under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act which is at par with Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and as the same was issued by respondent No. 1 without prior approval of the State Land Acquisition Board, all the proceedings with regard to the acquisition are illegal and the petitioner is entitled to get back his land.

3. Although the petition is quite lengthy and the petitioner has tried to make out a case as if the impugned acquisition is contrary to the provisions of law and the respondents have violated his legal/constitutional rights, after having carefully looked up into the entire record we are fully convinced that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief whatsoever.

4. At the out-set we may refer to the judgment dated 9.2.1994 (Annexure R-1) of the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, whereby he upheld the judgment and decree dated 8.4.1985 passed by the Sub Judge 1st Class, Ludhiana, dismissing the suit of the petitioner in which the petitioner bad claimed that he is owner in possession of the property in dispute. The learned Sub Judge as well as learned Additional District Judge recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the appellant has no right over the property in dispute. Both the Courts further held that the petitioner was not in possession of the suit land in his own right when the scheme was notified or the land was acquired. The Courts further held that the petitioner was in unauthorised occupation of the suit land and not as a tenant and he had no locus standi to challenge the acquisition proceedings. The Appellant Court further held that the trial Court was justified in recording a finding that the petitioner was estopped by his act and conduct from filing the suit. The learned Appellate Court observed :-

"From the documentary evidence on record it is not only obvious that the compensation in respect of the suit land had been paid to Dial Singh with the consent of the appellant but it is also evident that the possession had been formally delivered to the Trust. Apparently, the plaintiff is thus in unauthorised occupation of the suit land and he cannot be held entitled to the grant of discretionary relief of permanent injunction when he has not approached the Court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts."

5. Indeed, it is amazing that despite this specific observation made, in the judgment of the Appellate Court, the petitioner has filed this petition for issue of a writ to quash the acquisition proceedings. To us it is clear that the petitioner is playing a game of hide and seek either in connivance with his father or otherwise. From the record it is borne out that his father had issued a power of attorney in favour of his wife to receive the compensation and subsequently it was cancelled. The petitioner gave consent to the authorities for payment of compensation to his father and then filed a suit before the Civil Court and he has now filed this petition. The ulterior motive with which the petitioner has been acting throughout is evident from the fact that he forcibly managed to occupy the land after its possession had been taken over by the Trust, presumably under a mistaken impression that he is above law. This conduct of the petitioner is by itself sufficient to disentitle him from any relief under Article 226 of the Constitut