'She Acted With Open Eyes'

National National

Posted by AI on 2025-09-08 15:51:51 | Last Updated by AI on 2025-09-09 17:27:42

Share: Facebook | Twitter | Whatsapp | Linkedin Visits: 1

---

#{INSERT LEAD PARAGRAPH HERE}

The Supreme Court has dismissed a plea from a woman who challenged the insufficient disbursement of compensation for government acquisition of her land, saying she had acted with open eyes.

The top court said the woman, who sold her land to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board under the Land Acquisition Act of 1894, had accepted the amount offered for the property and could not raise new objections later.

The appellant now cannot reopen or dispute the factums of her own act by showing disagreement to the disbursement raising all after-thought contentions, it said, rejecting the plea.

The court noted that the woman, who was the original owner of the land, had accepted the amount offered by the housing board and received the compensation for the acquisition of the land.

It is not open for the appellant to urge any subsequent disagreement to the factum of her own execution of the consent letter and acceptance of the amount, which was freely and voluntarily done, it said.

The court said the woman had signed the consent letter, accepted the compensation, and voluntarily participated in the rituals that marked the transfer of the property to the housing board.

She acted with open eyes, it said.

The top court said the woman could not raise any subsequent objections to the amount of compensation offered for the acquisition of the land after receiving the amount.

The hands of the appellant are tainted with the consent letter and acceptance of the compensation, it said.

The court said the fact that the woman had accepted the compensation did not preclude her from challenging the acquisition of the land itself. However, it said, she should have approached the appropriate authority, such as the district collector or the settlement officer, to address her grievances.

The appellant should have exhausted the statutory remedies available to him under the Act of 1894, the court said.

Instead, it said, the woman chose to directly approach the top court, which did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

The doors of this court are not open to every body and for every purpose, it said.

The court dismissed the womans plea and said she should have approached the settlement officer under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 if she wanted to raise any objections to the compensation disbursed.

We are not inclined to entertain the petition, it said.

Go!