Consent order and approbate-reprobate principles bar selective challenge to denotification after accepted benefit under land acquisition proceedings.

A challenge to a denotification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 failed where the appellant had participated in the consent-based disposal, accepted the benefit of the order preserving possession over the larger extent of land, and raised no timely objection. In that setting, natural justice could not be relied on to undo the arrangement selectively, because a party cannot approbate and reprobate or retain the benefit of a consent order while rejecting its burden. The Court construed the order in light of the parties' conduct and litigation history and found no basis for interference.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant could challenge the denotification order under Section 48 after participating in and benefiting from the consent-based disposal that upheld acquisition over the remaining land, and whether the impugned order suffered from any infirmity warranting interference.

Analysis: The acquisition was under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for a company, so the statutory safeguards had to be strictly observed. The earlier denotification and the final order before this Court were read in the backdrop of the parties' conduct and the litigation history. The appellant was found to have been a participant in the decision-making process, to have accepted the benefit of the order protecting its possession over the larger extent of land, and to have raised no timely protest. In these circumstances, the principles of natural justice could not be invoked to undo the order selectively, because the appellant could not approbate and reprobate at the same time, and a party consenting to an order cannot retain its benefit while resiling from the burden.

Conclusion: The challenge to the denotification and the consequent request for interference failed; the appellant was not entitled to relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A party who knowingly accepts and benefits from a consent-based order cannot later challenge the same arrangement in part, and a court will construe such an order in its entirety in the light of the parties' conduct.

---