A party accepting enhanced compensation cannot contest the validity of land acquisition proceedings based on estoppel.

The original appellant, Ravail Chand (now represented by legal heirs), held ownership rights over land measuring 36 Kanals 17 Marlas in Village Rakh Bhau under Khasra No. 83 min

In 1970, the State initiated acquisition of a large tract of land, including the appellant’s plot

While a general award was passed in 1971, compensation for the appellant’s land was deferred due to disputes regarding the validity of his mutations

During this period, the appellant invoked Section 18 of the J&K Land Acquisition Act, seeking a reference for enhanced compensation

The Reference Court enhanced the amount in 1981, and the appellant accepted ₹72,677.33/-

Decades later, the appellant filed a writ petition (OWP No. 789/2003) challenging the validity of the acquisition itself, claiming no formal award was ever passed and seeking current market value

The Single Judge dismissed the petition in 2016, leading to this intra-court appeal

1. Whether a party, after seeking a reference for enhancement of compensation and accepting the same, is estopped from challenging the validity of the land acquisition

2. Whether the appellant is entitled to the remaining two-thirds of the compensation if his status was upgraded from tenant to owner following the quashing of adverse revenue orders

The court applied the "Doctrine of Election" and the principle that a party cannot "approbate and reprobate," as established in Suzuki Parasrampuria Suitings Pvt. Ltd. v. Official Liquidator

Amar Singh v. Union of India, which hold that a litigant cannot take inconsistent shifting stands in legal proceedings

Section 18 of the J&K Land Acquisition Act regarding the finality of reference proceedings

The Court observed that the appellant’s conduct was contradictory; he had voluntarily invoked the jurisdiction of the Collector under Section 18, deposed as a witness regarding the inadequacy of compensation, and accepted the enhanced amount awarded by the Reference Court

By doing so, he effectively acknowledged the validity of the acquisition

The Court held that the appellant could not later claim the acquisition was a nullity simply because the formal award process was complicated by mutation disputes

However, the Court noted that the appellant's ownership rights were eventually upheld by a Division Bench in 1993, reversing the Financial Commissioner's order that had treated him merely as a tenant

Since the JDA conceded they had no objection to paying compensation to the rightful owner, the Court found merit in the alternative plea that if the appellant only received one-third compensation (presuming tenancy), he was entitled to the balance two-thirds as an owner

The Court disposed of the appeal by directing Respondents 1 to 5 to verify if the appellant was paid only one-third of the compensation based on a "tenant" status. If so verified, the respondents are ordered to pay the remaining two-thirds balance with statutory interest from the date the payment became due until final disbursement, within three months

Final holding: Acquisition upheld, but directions issued for payment of balance ownership compensation