Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Saraswati Devi Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 August, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:43029
2024:MPHC
1 WP-14574-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 29th OF AUGUST, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 14574 of 2022
SMT. SARASWATI DEVI YADAV AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Mukhtar Ahmad - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Abhishek Singh - Government Advocate for respondents Nos.1 &
2/State.
Shri Sourabh Makhija - Advocate for respondents Nos.3 & 4.
Shri Amitabh Gupta - Advocate for intervenor.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:
"(i) To set aside impugned order dated 13.04.2022 (Annexure P18) and resolution dated 08.07.2019 (Annexure P14) to the extent it deals with mode of computation of compensation for the additional land taken over from the peti petitioners, over and excess of the land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act;
(ii) To direct the respondent Municipal Municipal Corporation Jabalpur to compute and pay compensation fofor NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:43029 2024:MPHC
2 WP-14574-2022 additional land admeasuring 0.093 hectares situated in 119/3, Madhotal, Tehsil and District Jabalpur, M.P. in accordance with provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 with all statutory benefits including solatium, interest at 18% p.a. etc from date ofof notification under Section 4 ii.e. 18.05.2012;
(iii) To direct the respondent Municipal Corporation Jabalpur to pay damages for wrongful dispossession of the petitioners from their land and for illegal use of the land admeasuring 0.093 hectares situated in 119/3, Madhotal, Tehsil and District Jabalpur, MP. from date of illegal dispossession i.e. from 2013 till date;
(iv) To direct the respondent Municipal Corporation Jabalpurto pay cost of the petition;
(v) Grant any other relief that this Honourable Court deems fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. This Court has passed the following order on 12.02.2024:
"It It is submitted by counsel for petitioners that initially respondents had acquired 0.120 hectares of land but took possession of 0.213 hectares of land. When this matter was agitated, then it was found that respondents have taken land in addition addition to what was acquired by them and accordingly, it is alleged that respondents have illegally grabbed the land of petitioners by not paying adequate compensation in accordance with the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acq Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short "Act 2013").
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:43029 2024:MPHC
3 WP-14574-2022
2. It is submitted by counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 that in fact Rs.50,000,00/-
Rs.50,000,00/ were paid to petitioners through cheque dated 03.12.2019 by way of first installment, which was received by them on 03.12.2019 without any objection. The second installment of Rs.30,000,00/-
Rs.30,000,00/ was paid to petitioners through cheque dated 24.12.2019, which was also received by petitioners without any objection. However, when third and final installment of Rs.37,03,900/ was paid to petitioners through cheque Rs.37,03,900/-
dated 05.03.2020, petitioners mentioned 'with objection'. Thus, once petitioners by necessary implication had agreed to receive Rs.1,17,03,900/ Rs.1,17,03,900/-
towards the consideration amount for additional land, which was additionally utilized by respondents No.3 and 4. Now, the petitioners cannot take a somersault.
3. In reply, it is submitted by counsel for petitioners that there are three ways of acquisition, which are;
(1) Acquisition under relevant Act. (2) By Agreement.
(3) By sale deed.
4. It is submitted that admittedly no acquisition proceedings were undertaken either under the old Land Acquisition Act or under the Act 2013 and similarly, there is no sale deed. So far as settlement of compensation amount amount by agreement is concerned, since no written agreement was entered into between the parties, therefore, it cannot be said acceptance of first installment of Rs.50,000,00/-
Rs.50,000,00/ and second installment of Rs.30,000,00/ would amount to implied agreement Rs.30,000,00/-
specifically ifically when petitioners had received the third installment of Rs.37,03,900/-
Rs.37,03,900/ under protest.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:43029 2024:MPHC 4 WP-14574-2022
5. Considered the submissions made by counsel for parties.
6. Admittedly in the present case, no acquisition proceedings had taken place in respect of excess la land utilized by the respondents. Similarly, there is no sale deed in respect of excess land.
7. Now the only aspect of the matter is as to whether the acceptance of first and second installment without any protest would amount to implied agreement between petitioners and respondents No.3 and 4?
8. Although, it is the contention of counsel for petitioners that by receiving the third installment under protest, it cannot be said that there is any agreement between the parties but in the considered opinion of tthis Court, petitioners after having received the first installment as well as second installment without any protest may amount to implied agreement. Therefore, before proceeding further on the issue that whether petitioners have accepted the amount of Rs.1,17,03,900/ 1,17,03,900/- by way of implied agreement or not, one more opportunity can be given to petitioners to refund that aforesaid amount with 6% interest in order to come out the rigors of possible estoppel or acceptance of compensation amount by way of implied agreement.
9. It is submitted by counsel for petitioners that since petitioners are entitled for higher compensation amount under the Act 2013, therefore, petitioners may not be directed to refund the amount.
10. Considered the submissions made by counsel for petitioners.
11. Whenever a compensation is assessed under the acquisition Act, then apart from market value, other factors are also required to be considered including NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:43029 2024:MPHC 5 WP-14574-2022 solatium etc. therefore, petitioners will also be getting the compensation under different heads. It is not a question of amount of compensation. The question is as to whether there is any implied agreement between petitioners and respondents No.3 and 4 or not? If this Court comes to a conclusion that petitioners have accepted the amount amount under an implied agreement, then whether they were entitled for higher compensation under Act 2013 or not would render meaningless.
12. Under these circumstances, it is directed that in case if petitioners deposit the entire amount of Rs.1,17,03,900/ with 6% interest with respondents Rs.1,17,03,900/-
No.3 and 4 within a period of one month from today, then the question of implied agreement will not be considered.
List this case after one month."
13.List
3. Petitioners have filed I.A. No.3823/2024 for modification of order dated 12.02.2024 on the ground that all the three installments were received under protest whereas in order dated 12.02.2024 it was mentioned that only third installment was received under protest.
4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner on I.A. No.3823/2024.
5. It is not a case whether compensation amount was received under protest or not? It is a case whether there was any implied agreement between the petitioner and Municipal Corporation, Jaba Jabalpur? If petitioners were of the view that they do not ot want the compensation offered by Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur, then they should not have accepted the cheques cheque at all. After having accepted the three cheques worth Rs.1,17,03,900/-, Rs.1,17,03,900/ petitioners cannot take a somersault mersault and cannot make a statement that that since there was no agreement, therefore, they NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:43029 2024:MPHC 6 WP-14574-2022 would not restore status quo ante by returning the amount of Rs.1,17,03,900/-.. All the arguments raised by petitioners were taken care of by this Court in its order dated 12.02.2024.
6. It is not a question of compensation. It is a question whether there was any implied agreement between the petitioners petitioners or Municipal Corporation? If the first cheque was received receive under protest protest, then the petitioners should not have received the second cheque and third cheque. After fter having accepted the amount and after having consumed the said amount, petitioners petitioner cannot take a somersault.
7. Section 19 of Indian Contract Act reads as under:
"19. Voidability of agreements without free consent. When consent to an agreement is caused consent.-When by coercion, fraud or misrepresentation, the agreement is a contract voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused.
A party to contract, whose consent was caused by fraud or misrepresentation, may, if he thinks fit, insist that the contract shall be performed, and that he shall be put in the position in which he would have been if the representations made had been true.
If such consent was caused by Exception.-If Exception.
misrepresentation or by silence, silence fraudulent within the meaning of Sectionn 17, the contract, nevertheless, is not voidable, if the party whose consent was so caused had the means of discovering the truth with ordinary diligence."
diligence.
8. From plain reading of aforesaid section,, it is clear that if any agreement is caused by coercion, fraud or misrepresentation misrepresentation, then it is a contract voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:43029 2024:MPHC 7 WP-14574-2022 caused. Iff petitioners petitioner are of the view that payment of Rs.1,17,03,900/ Rs.1,17,03,900/- is a voidable contract, contract then they have to return the amount for putting forward their case on merits but they cannot claim that apart ffrom the amount which they have already accepted, they are also entitled for additional amount.
9. Accordingly, I.A. No.3823/2024 is hereby rejected rejected.
10. It is submitted by counsel for petitioners petitioners that petitioners are not in a position to comply the order dated 12.02.2024 and they are not in a position to return the amount of Rs.1,17,03,900/-.
11. Since petitioners have consumed the amount of Rs.1,17,03,900/ Rs.1,17,03,900/-, therefore, in the light of Section 19 of Contract Act, it is clear that aggrieved party even in a case of voidable contract can seek enforcement of the same.
12. Once petitioners have expressed their inability to return the amount of Rs.1,17,03,900/-, Rs.1,17,03,900/ , then it has to be presumed that petitioners have accepted the implied agreement.
13. Under these circumstances, no case is made out for proceeding further in the matter.
14. So far as objections raised by intervenor are concerned, it is submitted by Shrii Gupta that intervenor has ha already filed a Writ Petition No.9398/2016 which is also listed for analogous hearing.
15. Therefore, with ith liberty to press W.P. No.9398/2016, this petition is dismissed.
(G.S.
G.S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
vc
Digitally signed by VARSHA
VARSHA CHOURASIYA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
MADHYA PRADESH, ou=HIGH
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
CHOUR
2.5.4.20=f460d4685ef5a4622238f0b5 9b78c2407fd3ee2f619d9ce8e428c22 4c23ec8ac, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=A0506346908D8FDC4 ASIYA A2DA9968A85B01E1D95EF7D16305 53560798626817C4267, cn=VARSHA CHOURASIYA Date: 2024.08.29 17:26:20 +05'30'