Shirdi Nagar Panchayat vs. Kishor Sharad Borawake & Ors.
Background
In 1992 a plot of land belonging to the respondent landowners was designated a "Green Zone/No Development Zone" in the Municipal Council's development plan. In 2004, the government converted it to a "Residential Zone" on the condition that the landowners hand over 10% of the land as free "open space" and another 10% as free "amenity space" to the Municipal Council. The landowners accepted this, signed agreements transferring both spaces, got their layout sanctioned, and sold 65 plots to buyers, but years later, after losing a separate suit and revenue proceedings over possession, both the landowners and the subsequent plot-buyers challenged the very 2004 notification and layout conditions in the High Court, which partly ruled in their favour and restricted the Municipal Council's use of the surrendered land.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the landowners could not challenge the 2004 notification after having taken full advantage of it for over a decade (developing and selling the land): this amounted to "approbating and reprobating" and invoked the doctrine of election, under which a party who chooses one remedy or benefit cannot later disown its conditions; the writ petition was also barred by a roughly 14-year delay. The plot holders fared no better since they had bought their plots knowing the layout conditions requiring 10% "amenity space" to go to the Municipal Council. The Court distinguished the precedent relied on by the High Court (which barred forcing developers to transfer "compulsorily reserved" land for free) because here the amenity-space transfer was a voluntary, negotiated condition for converting the land's zoning classification, not a blanket compulsory reservation. The Court upheld the High Court's finding only on "open space" (which stays for plot-holders' use) but reversed it on "amenity space," restoring the Municipal Council's right to it. As an equitable measure under Article 142 to protect century-old trees standing on the amenity-space land, the Court permitted the landowners/plot holders to request the Municipal Council to accept an alternative, similar-sized plot in exchange.
Lesson Learnt
A party who knowingly accepts the benefits of a government order or contractual condition (and acts on it for years, including selling land developed under it) cannot later turn around and challenge that very condition once it becomes inconvenient; courts will also refuse relief where such a challenge comes after long, unexplained delay.