Case: Vijay Cotton &amp; Oil Mills Ltd Vs. The State Of Gujarat

The appellant was the owner of land bearing survey No. 910 situated on the Bhachau-Rahapur Road in Kutch District. In November 1949 the Government of Kutch took possession of the land under an arrangement that the Government would give to the appellant in exchange other suitable lands of equal value. On that date Kutch was part of the territory of India and the Land Acquisition, Act, 1894 was in force there. After taking possession of the land the Government constructed thereon the State Guest House and the Court House. Thereafter the Government was neither willing to return the land nor to give other suitable land in exchange and instead it decided to acquire the land compulsorily. On February 1, 1955 the Government issued a notification under sec. 6 (1 ) of the Land Acquisition Act declaring that the land was needed for public purposes stating that possession of the land had already been taken over and directing the Collector to take action under sec. 7. The necessary action was duly taken and in due course the Collector made his award on April 22, 1957. The appellant objected to the amount of compensation and asked the Collector to make a reference to the Court under sec. 18. The Collector duly made the reference. At the hearing of the reference before the District Judge, Kutch, the Government conceded that the appellant was entitled to the market value of the land as on February 1, 1955. The District Judge awarded compensation accordingly. The Government filed an appeal in the High Court. At the hearing of the appeal the Government contended that in the absence of a notification under sec. 4( 1 ), no compensation could be awarded to the appellant.The High Court accepted the contention and observed that the appellant would be at liberty to contend in other proceedings that the acquisition was bad in the absence of a notification under sec. 4( 1 ). In this view of the matter the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Judge. The present appeal has been filed after obtaining a certificate from the High Court.

Court's reasoning:
The Government having constructed buildings on the land was not in a position to restore it and had: no option but to acquire it compulsorily. With a view to make the acquisition the Government published a notification under sec. 6( 1 ) on February 1, 1955. On finding that there was no separate notification under sec. 4( 1 ) the Government had a choice between two courses of conduct. It could say that in the absence of such a notification the acquisition was invalid and that no compensation could be awarded under sec. 23. If it did so it would be compelled to start fresh acquisition proceedings and pay a larger sum by way of compensation. The other course was to treat the notification of February 1, 1955 as. a composite one under secs. 4(1) and 6(1) with the consent of the appellant and to say that the market value of the land on that day could be awarded by way of compensation. The Government elected to choose the latter course. At the hearing of the reference, it conceded that the appellant was entitled to the market value of the land on February 1, 1955. The appellant agreed to accept compensation on that footingHaving regard to the consent of both parties, it could properly be assumed that the procedure of s. 5A had1 been waived by the appellant and that the notification of February 1, 1955 could be treated as a composite one under ss. 4 ( 1 ) and 6 ( 1 ). The District Judge could therefore lawfully award the market value of the land that day. Relying on the concession made by the Government, the appellant acted to its detriment. It did not challenge the acquisition and took no steps to recover the land. The result is that the Government has been in adverse possession of the land for more than 12 years since 1949 and has gained an advantage which it could not otherwise obtain. In these circumstances the Government cannot be permitted to resile from the election which it deliberately made and to say that the appellant is not entitled to the market value of the land on February 1, 1955. A party litigant cannot be permitted to take up inconsistent positions in Court to the deteriment of his opponents