Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 31507
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA, J
Babu @ Babu Rao Kadam – Appellant
Versus
Land Acquisition Officer-Special Dy.Collector Gaddenna Vagu Project at Nirmal & others – Respondent
W.P.No.44108 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.K.Sarala Mahender Reddy
For the Respondents: Government Pleader for Land Acquisition
A party cannot challenge an award after consenting to it, under principles of equity preventing contradictory positions.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 21, 300A - Land Acquisition Act - 1894 - Award and Compensation - The petitioner sought to challenge an ex-parte award made without proper enquiry and notification, claiming it was contrary to ordered previous judgments. The court found that consent was given for earlier proceedings, and the requisite legal notifications were duly issued. (Paras 1, 7, 11)
(B) Land Acquisition - Duty of Authorities - The Respondents were found to have complied with the court’s prior orders to issue fresh awards while the petitioner had affirmed to the consent award, thus estopping himself from challenging it. The court emphasized adhering to the principles of approbate and reprobate in its considerations. (Paras 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner alleged illegalities in an ex-parte award passed without fresh notifications and relevant procedures following earlier court directions. The court duly examined the records relating to consent given for awards discussed during the earlier proceedings and contended that the petitioner was estopped from denying this consent.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner’s rights were limited due to previously signed agreements, and no fresh notifications were required as earlier orders had been fulfilled. The court affirmed that the petitioner's claims lacked merit.
Issues: The key question was whether the petitioner could challenge an award he had consented to after previous judgments directed new awards.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the petitioner consented to the award process, and cannot dispute it now based on principles of equity that prevent blowing hot and cold. The case thus lacked merit and the writ petition was dismissed.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's challenge against an award based on perceived illegalities. (Para 2 , 3 , 5) |
| 2. arguments and counterarguments regarding the compliance and consent in the award. (Para 6) |
| 3. court's assessment of consent and its implications under equity. (Para 7 , 10) |
| 4. principles of approbate and reprobate articulated. (Para 11 , 12) |
ORDER:
Heard Mr.K.Sarala Mahender Reddy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3.
PRAYER:
2. The Petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under :
“…to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus challenging the illegal actions of respondents in passing ex-parte Award Rc No. C/23/2006, dt.01-05-2011 without hearing, enquiry based on old DN, DD dt.03.04.2006, 04.04.2006 as if we agreed for said consent Award, is contrary to orders dt.11.03.2011 passed in W.P.33295/2010 as earlier Award dt.28-03-2007 No. C/23/2006 was set aside to pass fresh Award, but no fresh Draft notification, Declaration published for, a) H.No: 1- 9, 1-9/1, extent 357 Sq.Mts with House, Hut constructed area 104 Sq.Mts & open space 253 Sq.mts, b) H.No1-34/1, 1-34/2 extent 2325.8 Sq.Mts towards petitioner ½ share, situated at Vill. Chichund, (M) Bhainsa, now Dist Nirmal and took possession for Gaddennavagu project in 2007-08, is illegal, contrary to law and made to live like beggar for loosing properties being land lord and call for records and set aside the Award Rc No.C/23/2006, dt. 01-05-2011 by issuing consequential directions: a) to acquire four properties afresh with all statutory benefits, b) to pay damages, rents @ Rs 15,000/ per acre per annum, with interest @ 15% PA, to till realisation for utilising petitioner's properties illegally from 2007, alternatively the respondents may be directed to provide the same extent of properties with similar potentiality, Market value with structures on the plots, to end this litigation without insisting for refund of the compensation already paid to the petitioner and award exemplary costs and pass such other orders as deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court in the circumstances of case, otherwise it will result in grave miscarriage of Justice.
Further, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to initiate fresh land acquisition proceedings to petitioner’s 4 properties a) H.No:1- 9, 1-9/1, 357 Sq.Mts with House, Hut constructed area 104 Sq.Mts & open space 253 Sq.Mts b) H.No.1-34/1, 1-34/2, extent 2325.8 Sq.Mts towards his ½ share, situated at Vill. Chichund (M) Bhainsa, now Dist Nirmal, pending disposal of WP and pass such other orders...”
3. PERUSED THE RECORD.
A) Counter affidavit filed by the 1st Respondent, in particular, at paras 3 and 4, read as under:
“3. It is to state that, the petitioner filed WP No.33295/2010 challenging the award. The Hon'ble High Court, A.P., Hyderabad disposed the W.P.No.33295/2010 on 11-03-2011 as follows.
"The writ petition is allowed and the award Dated: 28- 3-2007, in so far as it pertains to the property of the petitioner in H.No.1-9 and 1-9/1 of Chichund village is set aside The 2nd respondent (SDC GVP) is directed to pass fresh award in respect of those two items of property as well as those in H.No.1-34/1 and 1-34/2 within three months from today".
As per the Orders of the Hon'ble High Court, AP, Hyderabad in W.P.No.33295/10, Dated: 11-03-2011 the Special Deputy Collector, GVP has passed fresh Award duly conducting fresh enquiry in respect of H.No.1-9, 1-9/1, and an open area in H.No.1-34/1 and 1-34/2 situated at Chichund village. During the award enquiry the petitioner and one Kadam Tulasi Bai executed the agreement agreeing for the market value under Form-III and Form-IV in respect of the house property in presence of the witnesses.
As per the consent of the petitioner, the Supplementary Aw ard U/ s 11 (2) w as passed vide Aw ard
