Acquiescence and Delay Preclude Compensation for Land Used in Public Road Construction with Implied Consent

The appellant claimed that the State-respondents illegally constructed a road under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna over 3 decimals of his raiyati (ancestral) land without formal acquisition or compensation

While the appellant alleged he opposed the construction, he only filed formal representations in December 2020 and January 2021—approximately seven years after the road was completed in 2014

The State contended the land was voluntarily provided by the appellant to enhance the value of his surrounding property

A learned Single Judge dismissed the original writ petition on the grounds of unexplained delay (laches) and implied consent

The appellant challenged this dismissal via the present Letters Patent Appeal.

1. Whether the appellant is entitled to compensation for land used in road construction after maintaining silence for seven years

2. Whether the Principle of Estoppel applies to a petitioner who allegedly consented to land use and later challenged it (approbate and reprobate)

The Court applied the equitable doctrine of laches, which bars legal relief for parties who "sleep over their rights" for an unreasonable period

It further invoked the principle of "approbate and reprobate," a form of estoppel that prevents a party from taking inconsistent legal stands—specifically, consenting to an act to gain a benefit (increased land valuation) and subsequently challenging that same act as illegal

The Court observed that the road was constructed in 2014, yet the appellant remained silent for seven years before seeking any grievance redressal

The Court found that the appellant did not file a rejoinder to controvert the State’s specific assertion that the land was donated to increase the valuation and utility of the remaining property

Applying the law to these facts, the Court reasoned that the long delay indicated the appellant’s original agreement with the construction

The Court determined that there was no perversity in the Single Judge’s findings, as the appellant’s attempt to seek compensation years later constituted an impermissible shift in stance (approbating and reprobating)

The Court affirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge, finding no grounds for interference. The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed.