Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1644 (ALL)

PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2007-05-25

V.K.SHUKLA

body2007
JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J.—This Review Application has been filed for review of judgment and order dated 23.3.2006 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 76863 of 2005, Pravesh Kumar Sachdeva v. State of U.P. and others, to the extent of directives given “petitioners as well as State Respondents are directed to ensure return back of the property in question to the private respondents forthwith. 2. This Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 76863 of 2005, Pravesh Kumar Sachdeva v. State of U.P. and others, after calling for the record qua auction proceedings, which had been held, found that the said auction proceedings were nothing but an outcome of fraud and manipulation, passed the judgment and order under review, directing the State-respondents as well as petitioners to return back the property to private respondents forthwith, Against the said judgment, Special Leave to Appeal No. 83165 of 2006 had been filed before Hon’ble Apex Court by Pravesh Kumar Sachdeva, and the Hon’ble Apex Court upon hearing the Counsel for the parties has issued notice limited to the question of refund and interim stay of the direction for deposit of cots has been passed. The order passed by Hon,ble Apex Court is being quoted below : “Upon hearing Counsel the Court made following ORDER Issued limited to the question of refund. Mr. S.R. Setia, learned Counsel appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 4. Dr. Rajiv Dhawan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the said respondent No. 4 states that it shall be indicated in the counter-affidavit to be filed as to why the refund as claimed shall not be granted. Issue notice to other respondents. Interim stay of the direction for deposit of costs. (Neena Verma) (Khushi Ram) Court Master Court Master” 3. Dr. Rajiv Dhawan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the said respondent No. 4 states that it shall be indicated in the counter-affidavit to be filed as to why the refund as claimed shall not be granted. Issue notice to other respondents. Interim stay of the direction for deposit of costs. (Neena Verma) (Khushi Ram) Court Master Court Master” 3. The applicants claim that they are subsequent purchasers for value without notice and have invested huge amount of money over the said property by constructing multi-storied building, as such directives contained in the judgment under review to the extent that, the petitioner as well as State respondents shall ensure return back of the property in question to private respondents forthwith, shall be adversely affecting their rights, as such said part of the order is liable to be recalled, and as far as fraud part is concerned, they have no concern with the same, as they themselves are the victim of greater fraud, and equitable view be taken in the matter. 4. Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the applicants, who have applied for review, contended that finding of fact returned on fraud by auction purchaser is not being assailed and to the contrary applicants are victim of much more fraud, in the present case, as they are bona fide purchasers for value and once this direction of restoring back property is maintained, they will suffer an irreparable loss and same would be causing unjust enrichment to respondents, who in the past had entered into agreement to sale of the property in question and had realized heavy amount in lieu of the same, and coupled with this, there is no direction for refund of the amount also of the auction money, and at the present moment building worth Rs. 2,00,00,000 is standing and all this will go to the respondents, as such it has been prayed that equitable view be taken and the said two lines be deleted from the body of the judgment. 5. 2,00,00,000 is standing and all this will go to the respondents, as such it has been prayed that equitable view be taken and the said two lines be deleted from the body of the judgment. 5. Sri V.B. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of private respondents, on the other hand, contended that the applicants have alredy contested the matter through Pravesh Kumar Sachdeva, and they are not at all bona fide purchaser for the value and the circumstances are speaking for itself, and once auction has been held to be void, then any subsequent right flowing from it also falls to the ground, and the application for review, as it has been framed and drawn, is liable to be dismissed. 6. After respective arguments have been advanced, factual position which emerges is to the effect that this Court in its judgment dated 23.5.2006 has held auction proceedings to be sham, void and outcome of fraud and manipulation. Against the said judgment, the auction purchaser has approached the Hon’ble Apex Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal No. 83165 of 2006, which has been entertained for limited question of refund. Applicants claim that they are bona fide purchasers for value and pragmatic approach should be taken in the matter, while dealing with the applicants, as they have invested huge amount of money in purchasing the property and developing the same. Background of the case, as reflected from the Review Application and the documents filed in its support thereof, is that Pravesh Kumar Sachdeva entered into an agreement to sale with Manmohan Mitra on 18.7.2004, and as per agreement a sum of Rs. 32,00,000/- had been paid as earnest money. As per said agreement possession had to be handed over after at least 90% of the sale consideration was paid. Another agreement to sale dated 29.7.2004 was also there by Deepak Mitra and others in favour of Pravesh Kumar Sachdeva and others, wherein Rs. 11,00,00,000/- was paid as earnest money and possession had to be handed over after at least 90% of the sale consideration was paid. There is yet another agreement by Madhurima Mitra in favour of Umesh Chandra Kesharwani and others dated 25.2.2004 wherein advance payment of Rs.15,00,000/ was made. 11,00,00,000/- was paid as earnest money and possession had to be handed over after at least 90% of the sale consideration was paid. There is yet another agreement by Madhurima Mitra in favour of Umesh Chandra Kesharwani and others dated 25.2.2004 wherein advance payment of Rs.15,00,000/ was made. The agreement to sale in favour of Pravesh Kumar Sachdeva clearly reflects his interest in the property and without insisting for the said agreement to sell to be brought to logical end by filing suit for specific performance of contract, a novel device was adopted by him by getting the property attached and getting the same put to auction and by misusing the Governmental machineries got the said property transferred in his name. All these aspects of the matter have been dealt with in the original judgment in detail. As possession of property of the respondents had been parted with on the basis of collusive attitude of district administration and as auction proceedings was sham, as such in this backdrop, directives for return back of the property to private respondents had been given. The most curious feature of the case is that after property in question has been purportedly auctioned in favour of Pravesh Kumar Sachdeva on 17.12.2004, immediately thereafter on 21.12.2004, Collector executed sale-deed in favour of Pravesh Kumar Sachdeva. Immediately, thereafter, Pravesh Kumar Sachdeva entered into agreement to sell on 5.1.2005 and took advance of twenty lacs rupees. Thereafter, property in question was got converted into freehold on 1.4.2005, and immediately thereafter on 3.5.2005 saIe deed had been executed by Pravesh Kumar Sachdeva in favour of Sanjiv Jain, Sandeep Jain, V.P. Goel, Yogesh Goel, Rohan Mehrotra, Smt. Iti Mehrotra and Rajiv Agrawal, with whom he had entered into agreement to sell. Sale-deed dated 3.5.2005 forms part of record. The said sale-deed mentions that on the basis of auction sale property in question had been acquired by Pravesh Kumar Sachdeva. Thereafter he got the same converted into freehold, as such he owned the land and executed the sale-deed. Reason for selling said property is that he was not having much benefit from the said property and after selling the said property to first party, he will purchase second property. Thereafter he got the same converted into freehold, as such he owned the land and executed the sale-deed. Reason for selling said property is that he was not having much benefit from the said property and after selling the said property to first party, he will purchase second property. The sale-deed clearly mentions that in case any defect is found in the title of the first party, on account of which possession of the second party is defeated or the second party is dispossessed, then the second party will have right to recover the amount from movable and immovable property of the first party. Relevant extract of the sale-deed dated 3.5.2005 is being quoted below : ÞIykV eqoS;k gj rjg ds ckj ls ikd lkQ gS fQj Hkh vxj ÁFke i{k&foØsrk dh feyfd;r esa uqDl gksus dh otg ls IykV eqoS;k dqy ;k tqt f}rh; i{k&Øsrkx.k mijksDr ds dCtk n[ky ls fudy tkos ;k dksbZ [kslkjk gksos rks f}krh; i{k&Øsrkx.k mijksDr dks gd o vf[r;kj gkfly gksxk fd og dqy tj leu cSukek gktk e; [kslkjk o [kpkZ eqdnek ÁFke i{k&foØsrk dh tkr o tk;nkr py o vpy ftlls pkgs olwy dj ysos blesa ÁFke i{k&foØsrk o muds okfjlku o dk;e eqdkeku dks dksbZ mt ugha gS vkSj u Hkfo"; esa gksxkAÞ 7. Thereafter by the second party of sale-deed dated 3.5.2005, sale-deed has been executed to the second party of sale-deed dated 5.5.2005. The most surprising feature mentioned in the sale-deed dated 5.5.2005 by the first party is that from the said property much benefit was not being extracted, as such said property was being sold. Furthermore, the second party has mentioned that the property was being purchased for personal use. The most surprising feature mentioned in the sale-deed dated 5.5.2005 by the first party is that from the said property much benefit was not being extracted, as such said property was being sold. Furthermore, the second party has mentioned that the property was being purchased for personal use. The said sale-deed dated 5.5.2005 also mentions that in case any defect is found in the title of the property of the first party, then it would be open to the second party to recover the amount from movable and immovable property of the first party, Relevant extract of the sale-deed dated 5.5.2005 is being extracted below : ÞIykV eqoS;k gj rjg ds ckj ls ikd lkQ gS fQj Hkh vxj ÁFke i{k&foØsrkx.k dh feyfd;r esa uqDl gksus dh otg ls IykV eqoS;k dqy ;k tqt f}rh; i{k&Øsrkx.k mijksDr ds dCtk n[ky ls fudy tkos ;k dksbZ [kslkjk gksos rks f}krh; i{k&Øsrkx.k mijksDr dks gd o vf[r;kj gkfly gksxk fd og dqy tj leu cSukek gktk e; [kslkjk o [kpkZ eqdnek ÁFke i{k&foØsrkx.k dh tkr o tk;nkr py o vpy ftlls pkgs olwy dj ysos blesa ÁFke i{k&foØsrkx.k o muds okfjlku o dk;e eqdkeku dks dksbZ mt ugha gS vkSj u Hkfo"; esa gksxkAÞ 8. Circumstances are speaking for themselves, inasmuch as on 3.5.2005 one sale-deed is being executed and immediately thereafter on 5.5.2005 another sale-deed is being executed by mentioning that it is required for personal use, whereas the fact of the matter is that said property in question had never been used for personal use, and the record reveals that multi-storied flats have been constructed thereon, as is evident from the photographs appended. Sale-deed dated 5.5.2005, thus, contains totally incorrect recital of facts, coupled with this, in case any of the rights of the applicants are affected or infringed, then remedy is provided for to them in the sale-deed itself that they can recover the same from the movable and immovable property of the first party. Sale-deed dated 5.5.2005 shows that the stamp papers, which have been appended for the purpose of sale-deed, majority of them are prior to the date of sale-deed dated 3.5.2005. Sale-deed dated 5.5.2005 shows that the stamp papers, which have been appended for the purpose of sale-deed, majority of them are prior to the date of sale-deed dated 3.5.2005. All these facts clearly show that this exercise of change of hands is deliberate calculated exercise, wherein with great pace and speed sale-deed after sale-deed has been executed, so that the real owner gets messed up in the webs of technicalities and are divested of their property, and possession which has been taken illegally, in colourable exercise of power, is not restored back to them. One more surprising feature of the sale-deed dated 5.5.2005 running page 110 of the paper book is that Pawan Kumar Agrawal has been identified by Rajiv Agrawal and Ravi Kumar Mehrotra, Rajiv Agrawal is one of the first party of the sale-deed dated 3.5.2005 and Ravi Kumar Mehrotra is connected with Smt. Iti Mehrotra, the first party of the sale-deed dated 3.5.2005 and Rohan Mehrotra, as he happens to be father of Rohan Mehrotra. This goes to show that parties are known to each other and are well aware of the backdrop of the proceedings. Thus, the applicants cannot be termed to be bona fide purchaser for value without notice, 9. At the earlier point of time when writ petition had been filed before this Court Pravesh Kumar Sachdeva in paragraphs 27 and 28 of the writ petition has mentioned as follows : “27. That subsequent purchaser has deposited Rs. 9,37,981/- on 4.6.2005, in favour of the Allahabad Development Authority for sanction of map which was sanctioned on 6-6-2005, Copy of the same are enclosed and marked herewith as Annexures 14 and 15 to the writ petition. 28. That it is further submitted that after the map was sanctioned, the petitioner has raised construction on 1170 sq. yards i.e. 978.237 sq. meters’ land upto 3rd floor and only finishing work is to be done and thus, the subsequent purchaser has invested more than Rs. 50,00,000/- in raising the construction apart from the cost of the land, photographs showing the construction upto 3rd floor on the disputed site is enclosed and marked herewith as Annexure 16 to the writ petition.” 10. meters’ land upto 3rd floor and only finishing work is to be done and thus, the subsequent purchaser has invested more than Rs. 50,00,000/- in raising the construction apart from the cost of the land, photographs showing the construction upto 3rd floor on the disputed site is enclosed and marked herewith as Annexure 16 to the writ petition.” 10. The photographs of the constructions which were given at that point of time, show that it was semi finished construction, and the photographs appended with this Review Application, show that constructions have been completed and they speak in volumes for itself. Photographs, which have been filed as Annexure-16 to the writ petition, and the photographs, which have been annexed along with this Review Application clearly speak that the applicant had full knowledge of the pendency of the aforementioned writ petition and in spite of the same constructions were carried on and completed. Circumstances speak that earlier writ petition in fact was proxy litigation on behalf of the applicants being conducted by Pravesh Kumar Sachdeva. It has been mentioned in the writ petition that subsequent purchaser has invested more than Rs. 50,00,000/- in raising constructions apart from the cost of the land. Pravesh Kumar Sachdeva also mentioned that he had raised the constructions. Pravesh Kumar Sachdeva, once he had no connection with the applicants, then he had no occasion to contest the matter, as he had already taken money from the concerned purchasers, and had no interest left in the property. The only interest he could have had, that after cancellation of sale-deed, he was to return the money. The circumstances clearly speak that the applicants had full knowledge of the proceedings and the documents of the applicants had been filed by Pravesh Kumar Sachdeva in the shape of photographs of the building, permission accorded by Allahabad Development Authority (Annexures 14 and 15 to the writ petition) and the same documents are being relied upon by the applicants also. 11. Much issue has been raised in regard to unjust enrichment of respondents. It is true that in the original judgment, no direction has been issued for recovery of the amount of auction money. Qua the same Special Leave to Appeal has been filed by Parvesh Kumar Sachdeva, and the said issue is engaging the attention of Hon’ble Apex Court. 11. Much issue has been raised in regard to unjust enrichment of respondents. It is true that in the original judgment, no direction has been issued for recovery of the amount of auction money. Qua the same Special Leave to Appeal has been filed by Parvesh Kumar Sachdeva, and the said issue is engaging the attention of Hon’ble Apex Court. In respect of agreement to sale which had been entered into between the parties, qua the same as per the terms and conditions of the agreement possession was to be handed over. Rights of the parties would flow from the said agreement. In case said agreement was not being honoured by the parties, then the remedy of the incumbent, in whose favour agreement had been executed, has remedy to file suit for specific performance of contract, and in the event said contract is inexecutable then for refund of the amount. Pravesh Kumar Sachdeva, in the first round of litigation, did not disclose before this Court that there were two agreements to sell in his favour, for the same property, and also at no point of time disclosed as to under what circumstances, the said agreements to sell, could not mature in the shape of final sale-deeds. The reason has been obvious, as he has been claiming that he had purchased the property, in valid auction proceeding, held on 17.12.2004, and had no concern with the property. No body stopped Pravesh Kumar Sachdeva from filing suit for specific performance of contract for agreement to sell or alternatively for return of the amount, and said course is always open to him, to pursue his remedy in accordance with law, but the said agreement to sell never authorised Pravesh Kumar Sachdeva, to collude with the district administration, stage show sham auction proceeding, and take possession of property, in the garb of the same. If law requires a thing to be done in particular manner, then the law has to be respected, and path provided for has to be followed, and other paths are necessarily and impliedly forbidden. If law requires a thing to be done in particular manner, then the law has to be respected, and path provided for has to be followed, and other paths are necessarily and impliedly forbidden. Suit for specific performance of contract/return of the amount is path provided for Pravesh Kumar Sachdeva, which shall be decided after evidence is led, in the event of any suit being filed, Court will not preempt the issue, as to who is defaulting party for not bringing the aforementioned agreement to sell to its logical end, as such merely because there had been agreement to sell and advance money had been paid, it cannot be said in the facts and circumstances of the case, that is a case of unjust enrichment. 12. In the direction of unjust enrichment, it has further been stated that Tripple storied structure is there worth two Crore rupees, and in the garb of the direction issued, said structure will also go to respondents without making any payment, as such this is a case unjust enrichment. In the present case auction sale dated 17.12.2004 has been questioned before this Court, by writ petition No. 51297 of 2004, wherein respondents were relegated to file objection under Rule 285 (1) of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. Thereafter objection had been filed on 16.12.2004 by Alok Mitra, Ashok Mitra, Deepak Mitra, Manmohan Mitra and Smt. Madhurima Ghosh, but in spite of the same sale was confirmed by District Magistrate on 21.12.2004. One of the objectors of Alok Mitra filed application and affidavit, withdrawing such objection, and Commissioner on 24.1.2005 dismissed the said objection. On 19.5.2005, application was moved by Deepak Mitra Ashok Mitra, Smt. Madhurima Mitra and Manmohan Mitra for recall of the order passed by Commissioner, rejecting objection as being withdrawn. The cloud of litigation was looming large. During the pendency of the same map has been got sanctioned on 6.6..2005, and constructions were started, without awaiting the adjudication result of Commissioner, which ultimately came on 21.11.2005. 13. The cloud of litigation was looming large. During the pendency of the same map has been got sanctioned on 6.6..2005, and constructions were started, without awaiting the adjudication result of Commissioner, which ultimately came on 21.11.2005. 13. In the present case earlier photographs, which had been appended in the writ petition clearly established that at that point of time building was incomplete, and the applicants had notice of the on going litigation before this Court, and irrespective of the said litigation, the applicants proceeded to complete the constructions showing complete disregard to law, as is evident from the photographs filed along with Review Application. The applicants had full knowledge of the proceedings, as it was their documents, which had been used earlier in writ petition, which in normal course of business would not have been with Pravesh Kumar Sachdeva, who had already parted with his interest in the property. It is well settled that once auction sale is held to be void, then any subsequent rights on the basis of the same is nullity. The sale-deed, which had been executed in favour of Pravesh Kumar Sachdeva and subsequent purchaser was thus, nullity, as it was based on an auction which has been found to be sham and collusive. When auction sale itself has been held to be illegal, then in law, it is presumed to have no existence at all i.e. void, ipse jure, that is void from the very inception, and has to be ignored in law at all, if and when question arises, and any subsequent sale pursuant thereto is null and void. Once this is the factual position, then all the three sale-deeds subsequent to auction vis-a-vis respondents are nullity and no credibility could be attached to the same and the rights inter se parties, who were parties to the sale-deed dated 5.5.2005, would flow from the sale-deeds. Rights of the applicants are fully protected under the sale-deed that in case any defect was found in the title of the first party, then it would be open to the second party to realise the entire amount from the said party from its movable and immovable properties in terms of the sale-deed. The constructions have been carried out with open eyes and in a well calculated manner by taking risk. The constructions have been carried out with open eyes and in a well calculated manner by taking risk. The applicants have failed to prove that they had no knowledge of the ongoing proceedings before this Court, whereas the circumstances are speaking otherwise, and the entire building has been sought to be completed, then the applicants themselves are responsible for such a situation and as far as respondents are concerned, they cannot be blamed for the same, in case applicants had chosen to construct the building with impunity. The applicants can remove their fitting and fixtures, in case they so desire, but in all eventuality possession has to be restored back as justice cannot be denied to an incumbent, who had been victim of fraud on the ground that they would be unduly enriched. 14. Reliance has, been placed by the applicants, on the provisions of Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act , 1882, by contending that by virtue of transfer of immovable property, improvements have been made on the property, believing in good faith, that he is absolutely entitled thereto, and subsequent to the same, if he is to be evicted by person having better title, then he has a right to be paid, the value of improvement estimated or alternatively, sell the interest of his to the transferee at market value. Section 51 of Transfer of Property Act, lays down equitable principles, and enables Court to determine equities between the parties, wherein improvements have been made by bona fide holders under defective titles. In the present case, in the backdrop already noted auction proceedings were sham collusive, outcome of fraud and manipulation, and net consequence of the same was that sale-deeds were void, as fraud vitiates everything and fraud and justice cannot travel/dwell simultaneously, side by side. Bona fide is the essence of invoking protection of this provision, which is fully reflected from the facts and circumstances already discussed in the earlier part of the judgment, in respect of the way and manner sale-deed has been got executed and the incorporation of totally incorrect statement of fact herein, that same is required for his residence and shortly thereafter multi storied flats have been got constructed. Here whole stand of applicants, lacks of bona fides, as they got their sale-deed executed on 5.5.2005, application for withdrawing order passed by Commissioner was made on 19.5.2005, map was got sanctioned on 6.6.2005, and then with hot haste, structure has been sought to be set up, which was unfinished structure when Commissioner cancelled the auction sale on 21.11.2005, but even thereafter, constructions have been carried out to give final shape to the building. Respondents at no point of time encouraged applicants to raise constructions on their land, and change the position, rather knowing fully well that cloud of litigation was there, applicants proceeded to complete constructions, and for these purported improvements, protection is sought for. Said actions of applicants are not at all protected, under Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, as same by no means can be brought within the purview of, believing in good faith that he is absolutely entitled to do so. The case in hand is not one of better title vis-a-vis defective title, rather this is a case, wherein only respondents have title, and others have no title, whatsoever, as their entire existence is based on fraud and collusion with each other and with district administration. Applicants are trying deliberately to create equity in their favour, but the facts and circumstances of the case, negative all bona fides in the construction of building. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of R.S. Modanappa v. Chandramma, AIR 1965 SC 1812 , took the view that no man knowing fully well that he has no title in the property, spends money on improving it can be permitted to deprive the original owner of his right to possession of the property except upon payments for improvements, which were not effected with the consent of that person, cannot be made liable to pay cost. Here, also knowing fully well that title was under cloud, and subsequently entire transaction has been found to be vitiated by fraud, then in the garb of averments that constructions have been carried out, cannot be ground to resist delivery of possession of property, except upon payments for improvements are made, is unacceptable, specially when constructions have been made without consent of respondents, and such category of cases cannot be termed to be a case unjust enrichment. 15. 15. Much reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Amey Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. v Public Concern for Governance Trust and others, 2007 AIR SCW 1249, for the proposition that, direction which has been issued is unrealistic and not at all pragmatic. In the said case allotment of plots by CIDCO to Co-operative Housing Societies had been cancelled by Bombay High Court. In the said matter Bombay High Court interfered in the matter and concluded that fraud has been committed in allotments and in this background, directives were given for forfeiture of plots. Hon’ble Apex Court, keeping in view the enormity of the expenses which had already incurred in the development of six plots, took the view that the plots be revalued by competent Government Valuer and compensate the loss, if any, incurred on account of under valuation of the said plot. State Government was further directed to cause a fresh valuation of all the plots on which allotments were made and then in the event valuation was found to be higher, that was directed to be paid by respondent Co-operative society. In the said case PIL was filed, at the point of time when construction was in advance stage, and alternative prayer was made for fresh valuation of plots for purpose of compensating ‘CIDCO’ in events plots found undervalued. In the said background, Hon’ble Apex Court, took the view that forfeiture of sale land and constructions raised and cancellation of plots was unrealistic ‘CIDCO’ was an authority under MRTP Act, 1986 for development of Navi Mumbai and other townships and its one of the main function was allotment and disposal of shops. The facts of the said case are altogether different. Here, in the present case, in a very well calculated manner property of private incumbent has been sought to be put on auction under the garb of recovery of dues and compulsory sale has been got affected, and applicants are subsequent purchasers of the same. Public interest and private interest are not to be weighed on the same scale, as in public interest, it is the society at large which is affected, whereas in private interest, few individuals/or individual in particular are affected. In the present case, facts and circumstances are clearly speaking that the applicants were not at all bona fide purchasers for the value without notice. In the present case, facts and circumstances are clearly speaking that the applicants were not at all bona fide purchasers for the value without notice. Deliberately and knowingly’, property in question has been purchased by them that they require the same for residential purpose, whereas immediately thereafter multi-storied building is said to have been constructed, and the flats are sought to be sold. If contention of applicants is accepted, same would be setting dangerous inequitious precedent, as property of some one would be grabbed in a well calculated manner, then in the name of large construction being raised, it would be argued that compensation be accorded to land owner in lieu of parting with property. A private person, cannot be compelled to enter into a forced sale, and in the name of equity, a person cannot be compelled to do act which is prohibited under law. Direction to restore back possession had been given, as respondents had suffered and lost their land due to abuse of power by public authorities in collusion with handful of persons, and thus creating a situation of complete helplessness for respondents. In the said situation keeping in view, that nothing is more damaging than feeling of helplessness, and respondents shall not be left to further fight and get entangled in web of litigation and succumb to the pressure of undesirable unwarranted litigation, said direction has been issued. More than a year has passed, since issuance of direction, and till date said order has not been complied with, and thus it could be very well appreciated and inferred that had there been no such direction for restoration of property, getting back the property would have been mirage for respondents. In these circumstances and in this background, from whatever angle case is viewed, there appears to be no justification for discovering equity, in favour of applicants, rather any decision to the contrary would be inequitable. 16. Review/Modification Application is dismissed with cost of Rs.20,000/- to be paid to each one of the private respondents, within one month from today. ————