In Brief
A municipal council sought to enforce conditions requiring landowners to transfer 10% of their land as 'open space' and 'amenity space' after converting the land from a no-development zone to a residential zone. The Supreme Court held that the landowners, having accepted the notification, executed agreements transferring the land, and subdivided and sold 65 plots based on the approved plan, were estopped from later challenging the notification under the doctrine of election and approbate-and-reprobate principles. The Court allowed the appeals and dismissed the High Court's judgment favoring the plot holders, but exercised discretion under Article 142 to allow the landowners to substitute alternate land of similar area instead of transferring land containing 100-year-old trees.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.