Judgment Debtors Cannot Approbate And Reprobate; Must Adhere To Agreed Valuation In Compromise Decree: Supreme Court

"Having agreed to compensation on the basis of guideline value, N.I.C.E. cannot now be permitted to contend that the value ought to be determined by treating the land as agricultural," Supreme Court, in a significant ruling, held that parties to a compromise decree cannot "approbate and reprobate" by resiling from agreed valuation benchmarks.

A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria observed that once a judgment debtor agrees to pay compensation based on the "guideline value" for land known to be converted for industrial use, they cannot later seek a lower valuation by treating it as agricultural land. The Court emphasized that the High Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, cannot act as an appellate court to reappreciate evidence or substitute its own interpretation of statutory notifications.

The dispute arose from a Memorandum of Settlement (MoS) between Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises (N.I.C.E.) and landowners regarding the Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project. Under the compromise, N.I.C.E. agreed to either provide alternative land or pay the "guideline value" for 3 acres 6 guntas of land it retained. When N.I.C.E. failed to convey the alternative land, an execution petition was filed where the Executing Court fixed the value at ₹1,000 per sq. ft., but the Karnataka High Court later reduced it to ₹500 per sq. ft.

The primary question before the court was whether a party to a compromise decree can resile from the agreed valuation terms by invoking the doctrine of approbate and reprobate. The court was also called upon to determine whether the High Court exceeded its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by modifying the Executing Court's factual and legal findings on land valuation.

High Court Cannot Act As Appellate Court Under Article 227

The Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of the High Court’s approach in modifying the Executing Court's order. The bench noted that the power of superintendence under Article 227 is not to be exercised as a matter of right or to correct every legal flaw. It held that the High Court is not vested with an unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of subordinate courts.

The bench observed that the High Court’s interference is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law. "The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based," the bench remarked.

"Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported."

State Impleadment In Private Lis Held Impermissible

The Court criticized the High Court for impleading the State of Karnataka at a belated stage to "clarify" the interpretation of the guideline value notification. The bench noted that the litigation was strictly between private parties arising out of a compromise decree. By calling for a State report, the High Court permitted the executive to interpret its own notification to the prejudice of one of the parties during active litigation.

The bench held that the State was effectively placed in the position of being a rule-maker, interpreter, and adjudicator simultaneously. "The executive cannot be allowed to explain away or reinterpret a statutory instrument during the course of litigation to the prejudice of one of the parties," the court observed.

"The High Court, in effect, permitted the State to interpret its own notification and thereby influence a lis exclusively between private parties."

Doctrine Of Approbate And Reprobate In Compromise Decrees

Focusing on the conduct of N.I.C.E., the Court applied the doctrine of approbate and reprobate. N.I.C.E. had argued that since the land remained undeveloped despite industrial conversion, it should be valued at agricultural rates (approx. ₹350 per sq. ft.). The bench rejected this, noting that N.I.C.E. was an "experienced infrastructure company" fully aware of the land’s status when signing the 2007 settlement.

The Court held that having accepted the benefit of the land under the compromise, N.I.C.E. could not later challenge the valuation method specifically agreed upon in Clause (xiii) of the MoS. "Having agreed to compensation on the basis of guideline value, N.I.C.E. cannot now be permitted to contend that the value ought to be determined by treating the land as agricultural," the judgment stated.

"Judgment debtors cannot be permitted to resile from their position and seek valuation on an agricultural basis after agreeing to statutory guideline values."

Interpretation Of Karnataka Guideline Value Notification

The bench restored the Executing Court’s valuation of ₹1,000 per sq. ft., finding its interpretation of the 2007 Notification to be "plausible and reasonable." It noted that the land fell within municipal limits (BBMP), attracting a base rate of ₹800 per sq. ft. as per Column 6. Adding a 25% enhancement for abutting a State Highway correctly resulted in the ₹1,000 figure.

The Court held that Instruction No. 6, which suggests a 50% reduction for certain industrial sites, was a residual provision and did not apply where specific rates were already prescribed for municipal areas. The bench cautioned that applying a reduction would lead to an "anomalous and absurd outcome" where converted urban land is valued lower than agricultural land.

"Applying Instruction No. 6 would lead to an anomalous result of valuing converted urban land lower than agricultural land."

Entitlement To Interest On Delayed Payments

Regarding the 6% interest awarded by the High Court in a separate proceeding, the Supreme Court upheld the liability. Although the compromise decree did not originally stipulate interest, the bench noted that N.I.C.E. failed to comply with an earlier apex court direction to pay the determined amount within eight weeks. By depositing only a portion of the total amount, the judgment debtor became liable for interest on the balance.

The Supreme Court dismissed N.I.C.E.'s appeal and allowed the appeal filed by the Decree Holders. It set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the Executing Court's order, fixing the land value at ₹1,000 per sq. ft. N.I.C.E. was directed to pay the balance amount of ₹8,79,95,250 with 6% interest per annum.

Date of Decision: 30 April 2026