SALEM MUSLIM BURIAL GROUND PROTECTION v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & Ors.

Doctrines/Principles – Principle of Acquiescence – Estoppel – Plea of the appellant-Committee that while hearing the writ appeal, the High Court was only obliged to either allow the writ petition or dismiss it and having decided to dismiss it, it could not have issued direction to the Government to consider claims u/s. 19A of the Abolition Act – Held: Appellant was never aggrieved by such a direction as it never questioned or challenged it in any higher forum – It appears to have accepted the said decision and the direction contained therein by participating in the subsequent proceedings before the Director of Survey and Settlement without any protest – After having lost in proceedings before the Director of Survey and Settlement, the appellant Committee preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue which was also dismissed – In the revision also no argument was raised that the directions issued by the High Court are without jurisdiction and not binding upon it – Acquiescence is followed by estoppel – Once an order is passed against a person and he submits to the jurisdiction of the said order without raising any objection or complies with it, he cannot be permitted to challenge the said order, subsequently, when he could not succeed – Once the appellant Committee accepted the order and participated in the proceedings, it is estopped in law from questioning the jurisdiction of the court in issuing such a direction – Tamil Nadu Estate (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1948 – s.19A. A B C D E F G H 390 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 7 S.C.R. A B C Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India AIR 1957 SC 397: [1957] SCR 233 – followed.