SARASWATI DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In land acquisition proceeding, which ended after payment of amount of award money, petitioners have approached this Court, while invoking its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, raising frivolous disputes. Material on record suggests that even number of landowners, who had already accepted the compensation amount without raising any objection, at subsequent stage, constrained the respondents, particularly; respondent Nos. 6 to 8/Nabinagar Thermal Power Project; Bhartiya Rail Bijlee Company Ltd., Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as 'Company' for sake of brevity) to come out with a proposal for making payment of compensation amount on the same rate, which was paid to villagers of Kajrain, Salaiya, Pirauta, Eghara and Suraar at the rate of Rs. 5,16,222/- per acre in place of paid compensation amount to the remaining four villages, namely; Khaira, Kerka, Dhunduwa and Mangabar at the rate of Rs. 2,61,371/-. This decision was taken as per out of court settlement. However, the enhanced amount was proposed to be paid after entering into an agreement/consent between the landholders, whose lands were acquired, and Company. Even though the respondent Nos. 6 to 8 had come out with aforesaid reasonable proposal, at least 18 persons, who are petitioners in the present proceeding, are raising unnecessary dispute and asking the Court to direct the respondents not to compel them to enter into such agreement. According to learned counsel for petitioners, such agreement is contrary to the provisions contained in the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the "Contract Act" for sake of brevity). Short fact of the case, as disclosed from the pleading, is that some time in the year 2008, the competent authority had published Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "L.A. Act" for sake of brevity). The rate of proposed land for villages, namely; Pirauta, Salaiya, Kajrain, Ekghara and Suraar was Rs. 5,16,221.83 per acre. However, land pertaining to villages, namely; Mangaawar, Khaira, Kerka and Dhundhuaa was at the rate of Rs. 2,61,370.61 per acre. The proposed rate was determined on the basis of market value of aforesaid nine villages. Land was finally acquired and compensation amount was received by the landholders, particularly; petitioners of the present writ petition. Petitioners of the present writ petition are residents of villages in respect of which market rate of the land was fixed as Rs. 2,61,370.61 per acre. The award was finally declared & paid and possession of the land was already handed over by the State of Bihar to respondent Nos. 6 to 8 in the year 2009 itself. Even though, acquisition process was completed in the year 2009, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present writ petition in the month of October, 2011 for the following reliefs:--

(2.) After filing of the writ petition, petitioners filed supplementary affidavit and in this case, counter affidavits were filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 6 to 8 and one another counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 5. Thereafter, supplementary counter affidavit was also filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 6 to 8 and number of other affidavits were filed either by petitioners or respondents and writ petition has been made bulky, though in the opinion of the Court, there is no substance.

(3.) Sri Binod Kumar Singh, learned counsel, who was assisted by Sri Anirudh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for petitioners, after the proposal was made by the respondent Nos. 6 to 8 for paying additional amount with a condition to execute an agreement, has raised a preliminary issue that by compulsion the petitioners may not be compelled to execute agreement, which is apparently contrary to the provisions contained in the Contract Act. He submits that if an agreement is entered in between the parties by coercion, the agreement shall be treated as unlawful. He has referred Section 15 of the Contract Act to elaborate the definition of coercion and he has relied on Section 23 of the Contract Act to impress upon the Court that proposal advanced by respondent Nos. 6 to 8 for executing agreement is an unlawful act. He submits that petitioners may be allowed to receive enhanced amount without asking them to execute agreement or give undertaking not to raise any dispute in future. To substantiate his submission regarding the allegation of coerced and illegal proposed agreement, learned counsel for petitioners has relied on number of judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, particularly; judgments, reported in:--