CITY MONTESSORI SCHOOL versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 2 S.C.R. 630 · Decided: 18-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 2 S.C.R. 630 
A 
CITY MONTESSORI SCHOOL 
ll.. 
v 
" 
' 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. 
Civil Appeal No. 1103 of 2009 
B 
FEBRUARY 18, 2009 
(S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.) 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : 
t 
Sections 4, 6, 8, 40, 48 - Acquisition of land including 
~ 
c::;-
c land occupied by school - Supreme Court observed that if 
the land occupied by the school is left out of acquisition there 
~
should be no objection to the contesting party- Subsequently 
Govt. issuing a Notification under s. 48 - Since the contest 
was confined only to the area occupied by school, entire 
D Notification could not be set aside - A party may waive his 
\. 
fight of hearing by his conduct - Similarly when it consents to 
an order it cannot be permitted to resile therefrom while 
retaining the benefit obtained therefrom - Administrative Law 
- Principles of Natural Justice. 
E 
Doctrines: 
Doctrine of sub-silentio acceptance - Applicability of. 
An extent of 6000 sq. ft. of land occupied on rent by 
the appellant school, along with the adjoining land, was 
F 
acquired by the Government. Challenge thereto reach_ed 
the Supreme Court and it-observed that the contesting 
respondent should not have any objection if the High 
Court's judgment is affirmed to the extent of 6000 sq. ft. of 
the total area of the land. Thereafter, the Notification under 
G s.48 came to be issued by the State Government. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
_.. 
HELD : 1. Legally, appellant is not a party to the 
decision making process but the entire exercise has been 
H 
630 
CITY MONTESSORI SCHOOL V. 
631 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. 
/ 
taken by the State of Uttar Pradesh either on its own or A 
on the basis of the observations made by this Court. It 
could not have been initiated and/or given effect to 
without consent of the appellants. Even if there was no 
explicit consent, implicit consent is evident. Even 
otherwise in a case of this nature, the doctrine of B 
acceptance sub-silentio must apply. [Para 19] [642-G-H; 
643-A] 
7 
Ramji Dayawala & Sons (P) Ltd. v. Invest Imports (1981) 
... 
1 sec 80 - relied on . 
""' 
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Darius Shapur c 
Chennai & Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 627 and Devinder Singh & Ors. 
v. State. of Punjab & Ors. (2008) 1 SCC 728 - referred to. 
2. Validity of notification under Section 4(1) and the 
declaration under Section 6 could have been declared by 
D 
this Court only upon setting aside the findings of the High 
Court and not prior thereto. When a question arises as to 
whether a statutory authority has acted mala fide or 
otherwise or had not complied with the mandatory 
provisions of the statute rendering its decision void and 
a nullity, the same must be established by the party E 
alleging the same. The court exercising the power of 
judicial review cannot do so only at the instance of parties 
who are colluding with each other. The State, the 
landladies, the appellant and the Parents Asociation, were 
all on one side. The landladies for one reason or the other F 
did not intend to question· the legality or validity of the 
acquisition notification. They had even accepted the 
amount of compensation deposited. Contesting 
respondents only, thus, were on the other side. If the High 
Court's judgment was to be set aside, it was to be set aside 
in its entirety and not a part of it. However, the contesting G 
respondents could not have insisted that the entire 
notification should be set aside as their interest in the land 
was confined to 6,000 sq. ft. only and upon issuance 
thereof, they ceased to have any locus to question the 
entire notification. [Para 21] [643-H; 644-A-D] 
H 
632 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
3.1 The Court, despite opining that principle of natural 
·"-.. 
justice was required to be followed, may, however, decline 
grant of a relief, inter alia, on the prerriise that the same 
would lead to a useless formality or that the person 
concerned, in fact, did not suffer any prejudice. It is trite 
B that a party may waive his. right of hearing by his conduct. 
It is furthermore well settled that a fact admitted need not 
be proved. Indisputably, the appellant was a party to the 
decision. The decision was based on the consent of the 
r 
respondents which, in the facts and circumstances of this 
-
case, must be held to have included the appellants also. 
~
c A judgment rendered by a court of law and in· particular a 
consent order, it is trite, must not onl

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.