Judgment · Supreme Court

2.2 Whether irrespective of Rule 26 of the Rules which prescribes for issuance of a general public notice, any special notice upon the appellant was required to be served by the State or by the authority cannot be. gone c into by this Court for the first time. Validity of Rule 26 of the Rules was not questioned nor was it claimed to be ultra vires s. 52 of the Act. Assuming that it was obligatory on the part of the State to serve a special notice up~n the appellant, non-compliance thereof vis-a-vis the conduct D of the appellant himself would be of no consequence. [para 21 and 23] [579-G, H; 580-A, E, F]

#3. The appellant, through his conduct, has waived his right to an equitable remedy in the instarit case as he did not file objections for re-allotment nor did he E participC\te in the proceedings following acquisition instituted by the authorities under the Act. Such conduct precludes and operates as estoppel against him with r~spect to asserting a right over a portion of the acquired land in a situation where the scheme in question has F attained finality following as a result of the appellant's inaction. A person may waive a right either expressly or by necessary implication. He may in a given case disentitle himself from obtaining an equitable relief particularly when he allows a thing to come to an irreversible G situation. Therefore, appellant has waived benefit of the .. notice provided under the Act and Rules in which no public interest are involved. [para 24, 32, 33 and 351. [580-F, 583-E, F; 584-A; 586-F; 588-D, E] Manak Lal v. Dr. Prem Chand AIR 1957 SC 425; The· H ' ~ • ' .,,. _,, 568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C.R.