A party accepting allotment terms and benefits cannot subsequently challenge the associated interest levy.

The petitioner’s land bearing Khasra No. 448/7, admeasuring 0.034 hectare at Village Devpuri, Raipur, was acquired for Town Development Scheme-4 (Kamal Vihar). He expressed willingness to receive a developed plot in exchange for the acquired land on 04.05.2013 and submitted a further application on 26.04.2018, but the authorities allegedly did not take a decision for several years.

By memo dated 10.01.2022, the authorities required the petitioner to deposit Rs.10,71,450/-, including Rs.5,02,035/- as interest calculated for the period from 01.07.2012 to 06.02.2020.

The petitioner deposited the demanded amount on 28.02.2022, allegedly under protest, and thereafter accepted allotment of Plot No. B-223, Sector-9, Kamal Vihar. An agreement was executed on 28.03.2023, followed by execution of the sale deed.

The petitioner then filed the present writ petition seeking refund of the interest amount and compensation, contending that the delay was attributable to the respondent authorities.

The respondents opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner had voluntarily accepted and acted upon the allotment terms and had approached the Court belatedly.

Whether the petitioner could challenge the levy of Rs.5,02,035/- as interest after depositing the entire demanded amount and accepting and acting upon the allotment of the developed plot?

Whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and the petitioner’s failure to challenge the demand before depositing the amount?

The Court applied the equitable principle that a party cannot approbate and reprobate simultaneously: a person who voluntarily accepts and acts upon the terms of an offer or arrangement cannot subsequently challenge those terms after availing its benefits.

The Court also relied on the principle that a belated challenge, particularly where the disputed demand was not questioned before payment and the petitioner thereafter acted upon the arrangement, is not ordinarily maintainable in writ jurisdiction.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the order.

The Court found that the petitioner had deposited the entire amount demanded under the memo dated 10.01.2022 and thereafter accepted the allotment of Plot No. B-223, executed the agreement, and proceeded with the sale transaction.

Although the petitioner contended that the interest had been paid under protest and that the delay was attributable to the authorities, the Court held that he had voluntarily acted upon the allotment terms and obtained the benefit of the arrangement.

Having done so, he could not subsequently challenge the interest component.

The Court further noted that the petitioner did not contest the demand before depositing the amount and approached the Court only after a considerable lapse of time.

These circumstances attracted the rule against approbation and reprobation and rendered the challenge not maintainable.

The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit and not maintainable. No order as to costs was made.