ORDER 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 land-owners, 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 land-holders, 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). 2. 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 land-holders, 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 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 land-holders, 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:- (i) For issuance of an appropriate direction/order or writ in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the concerned Respondent to determine the market value of the land which is the highest price of the land acquired for the Nabinagar Thermal Power Project as per the memo no. 15/D.L.A. 07/06-923/R dated 18-05-2010 enumerated in 1.1(kha) (ii), (iii) and (v) contained in Annexure -6 and for determining the market value at the rate of Rs. 5,16,281.83 per acre which has been fixed for other similar villages acquired for same purpose and come under one block. (ii) For issuance of an appropriate direction, order or writ in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the concerned respondents to pay all statutory benefits provided under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and as “Bihar Land Acquisition Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2007”. After determining the compensation as per the resolution mentioned above. 3. 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. 4. 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. 4. 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:- (i) AIR 2005 SUPREME COURT 2306 (ZOROASTRIAN CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. AND ANOTHER –VERSUS- DISTRICT REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (URBAN) AND OTHERS), (ii) AIR 1994 ALLAHABAD 298 (NUTAN KUMAR AND OTHERS -VERSUS- IInd ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BANDA AND OTHERS), (iii) (2006) 5 SUPREME COURT CASES 330 (NAUTAM PRAKASH DGSVC, VADTAL AND OTHERS -VERSUS- K. K. THAKKAR AND ORS.) & (iv) (2007) 2 SUPREME COURT CASES 588 (RAMCHANDRA MURARILAL BHATTAD AND OTHERS -VERSUS- STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS). 5. Sri Singh, learned counsel for petitioners has further argued that since lands of petitioners were acquired without granting adequate compensation, constitutional right of the petitioners have been infringed and as such, this Court may direct the respondents to pay adequate compensation amount. In support of his submission regarding infringement of Constitutional Right of the petitioners, Sri Binod Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners has placed heavy reliance on a Supreme Court judgment, reported in 2013 (1) P.L.J.R. (SC) 289 (TUKARAM KANA JOSHI & ORS. THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER –VERSUS- M.I.D.C. & ORS.). In support of his submission regarding infringement of Constitutional Right of the petitioners, Sri Binod Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners has placed heavy reliance on a Supreme Court judgment, reported in 2013 (1) P.L.J.R. (SC) 289 (TUKARAM KANA JOSHI & ORS. THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER –VERSUS- M.I.D.C. & ORS.). In sum and substance, it has been argued that the respondents be restrained from asking the petitioners to execute an agreement containing a condition not to raise any further dispute. 6. Sri Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 6 to 8/Company has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners. He submits that once compensation amount was accepted by petitioners without raising any objection, the petitioners are debarred to raise issue at subsequent stage and as such, the present writ petition is liable to be rejected out-rightly. He submits that as per provisions contained in the L.A. Act after preparation of award under Section 12 of the L.A. Act, in case of dissatisfaction with the award amount, the petitioners were having remedy for raising objection and in that event in appropriate cases, matter was required to be referred to the Court under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. However, none of the petitioners ever raised any objection rather they accepted the award amount without any objection. He submits that award was prepared in the year 2009 and same was also received without raising any objection and as such, after lapse of years, the petitioners are not entitled to raise a dispute on award or compensation amount, that too before the writ court. He has further submitted that even after the payment of compensation amount, lands were acquired and possession was handed over to respondent nos. 6 to 8 for constructing Nabinagar Thermal Power Project, Aurangabad. The persons, whose lands were acquired, had raised dispute at much belated stage taking the plea that they should be given compensation on the highest rate, as per Government decision contained in Memo No. 15/D.L.A. 07/06-923/R dated 18-05-2010 enumerated in 1.1 (kha) (ii), (iii) and (v) for determining the market value at the rate of Rs. 5,16,281.83 per acre. The persons, whose lands were acquired, had raised dispute at much belated stage taking the plea that they should be given compensation on the highest rate, as per Government decision contained in Memo No. 15/D.L.A. 07/06-923/R dated 18-05-2010 enumerated in 1.1 (kha) (ii), (iii) and (v) for determining the market value at the rate of Rs. 5,16,281.83 per acre. It has been argued that petitioners had incorrectly relied on aforesaid instruction in view of the fact that acquisition proceedings in the present case had already come to an end in the year 2009 after giving compensation amount and taking over possession over the land in question. Even though, the Government instruction dated 18-05-2010 had indicated for grant of higher rate, the said instruction was subsequently revised, vide Government Memo No. 15/D.L.A. 07/06-952/R dated 24-05-2011, whereby, the exception clause as provided in clause 1.1 (kha) of Memo dated 18-05-2010 was replaced and it was made clear that same was applicable in cases where award was not prepared under Section 11 of the L.A. Act, whereas, in the present case, even award amount paid in the year 2009 i.e. prior to coming into existence of State Government’s instruction dated 18-05-2010. It has been clarified that in the present case, compensation for the acquired lands were calculated and paid by the State authorities as per Bihar Land Acquisition Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy 2007 and possession of lands were also handed over to respondent nos. 6 to 8 by the State authorities. While referring to statement made in paragraph-8 of the counter affidavit of respondent nos. 6 to 8 filed on 21st December, 2011, Sri Sinha states that the compensation for the acquired lands was determined as per clause 1.1 sub-clause (i) and (ii) of Bihar Land Acquisition Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy 2007. Since there were no sale transactions recorded in any of the nine villages where lands were acquired due to the ban imposed on Registration of sale transactions by the district administration, the sale transactions recorded for the last three years in the nearby village/mouza as per policy were taken for arriving the compensation. In such cases, the total sum of 50% of the highest sale transactions recorded in the last three years for similar land in the nearby village was to be taken and the average of the said value was to be paid as compensation. In such cases, the total sum of 50% of the highest sale transactions recorded in the last three years for similar land in the nearby village was to be taken and the average of the said value was to be paid as compensation. Accordingly for the project lands falling in villages of Pirauta, Salea, Kajrain, Eghara and Surar, the sale transactions recorded in the nearby village i.e. Majhiyaa, P.S. No.61 was considered, where a total of 49 sale transactions were recorded. Out of which 24 transactions pertain to Agricultural Land, 24 transactions of residential land and 01 sale transactions pertains to dry land. As per the policy total value of 50% of the highest sale transactions recorded for 24 Nos. of Agricultural lands is Rs. 61,94,662/-. The average of the said amount works out to Rs. 5,16,221.83 per acre and similarly for Residential land the total sale transactions are 24, fifty percent of 24 is 12 sale transactions, the sum of which is Rs. 2,00,85,14/-. The average of the said amounts works out to Rs. 16,73,762.083 per acre (i.e. Rs. 2,00,85,145/- divided by 12). Accordingly, in arriving the compensation of the lands falling in villages of Mangabar, Khaira, Kerka and Dhundhua, District Administration had taken the last three years sale transactions recorded in the nearby village i.e. Urdana P.S. No.52. Where, of the 45 sale transactions recorded, 42 transactions pertain to Agricultural Land, 03 Nos. pertain to Residential land. Applying the above policy, the compensation for Agricultural lands was determined as Rs. 2,61,370.619 per acre and similarly for Residential lands @ Rs. 14,78,456/- per acre. 7. He submits that even though the petitioners have got no right to get the compensation amount enhanced after filing of the writ petition, during the pendency of the writ petition, the villagers started agitation and they restrained the employees of the respondent nos. 6 to 8 for the period from 07-02-2012 to 19-03-2012 from entering into the work-site and hampered the project on number of dates. Thereafter, series of meetings with the villagers and district administration for settlement of various demands were held. 6 to 8 for the period from 07-02-2012 to 19-03-2012 from entering into the work-site and hampered the project on number of dates. Thereafter, series of meetings with the villagers and district administration for settlement of various demands were held. The respondent/Company also held a meeting with two Samiti of displaced farmers, namely; “Visthapit Kisan Majdoor Welfare Samiti” and “Chhetriya Vikas Sah Visthapit Kisan Majdoor Samiti” on various dates, which was finalized on 19-03-2010 and 12-03-2012 respectively, in which, the parties agreed that the land-oustees of four villages will be paid the compensation on the same rate as was paid to the land-oustees of the villages “Kajrain”, “Salaiya”, “Pirauta”, “Eghara” and “Suraar” at the rate of Rs. 5,16,222/- per acre in place of the compensation paid to the land oustees of remaining four villages namely “Khaiara”, “Kerka”, “Dhundhuwa” and “Mangabar” at the rate of Rs. 2,61,371/-. As per out of court settlement, the compensation on uniform rate was to be paid after entering into agreement/consent between the land oustees and the Company. 8. After the said agreement, the respondent/Company started making payments on uniform compensation from the month of June, 2012 to four persons (one from each village) after entering into an agreement/consent letter between the lands-oustees and the Company till the date of filing of affidavit of 7th March, 2013 by respondent nos. 6 to 8, which was by way of reply to second supplementary affidavit of the petitioners. The respondent/Company had already paid additional amount as per enhanced rate to 249 beneficiaries out of 584, who had voluntarily accepted the offer and received the compensation. It has been stated that cases of several other beneficiaries were in process of payment. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, Sri Sinha, learned counsel for respondent nos. 6 to 8 submits that the writ petition is liable to be rejected. 9. Similarly, learned State counsel, while referring to averment made in counter affidavit which was filed on 20th January, 2012 and supplementary counter affidavit filed on 8th April, 2013, submits that after preparation of award and its payment, land acquisition comes to an end and there is no provision for preparing supplementary award. 10. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. 10. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. On perusal of the record, it is evident that even though compensation amount was paid in terms of “Bihar Land Acquisition Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2007”, the petitioners, to the reasons best known to them, have made a prayer for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay all statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Bihar Land Acquisition Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2007. Of course in the writ petition, the petitioners have also prayed for directing the respondents to determine the market value of the land as per Memo dated 18-05-2010, at the time of argument, learned counsel for petitioners had emphasized that enhanced amount may be directed to be paid without asking the petitioners to enter into an agreement. In sum and substance, the petitioners had confined their prayer to restrain the respondents, particularly; respondent nos. 6 to 8 not to ask for executing agreement and direct for paying the proposed enhanced amount without any condition. It is evident that acquisition proceeding, so far as lands of the petitioners are concerned, had come to an end long back and if petitioners were having any objection regarding the compensation amount there was already remedy available to the petitioners under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Moreover, this matter is not an issue in the present writ petition after acquisition proceeding was over and possession of land was also handed over to respondent nos. 6 to 8. It is evident from the pleading that villagers started agitation and by way of adopting policy of arm twisting they succeeded in pursuing the respondent/Company to pay enhanced compensation amount at par with four villages in respect of whom market value was fixed at the rate of Rs. 5,16,222/- per acre. It was out of court settlement, and if by way of settlement outside the court enhanced amount was agreed to be paid, it would not be appropriate for this Court to interfere in such issue otherwise it will be amount to encourage the adoption of such unlawful activities. On oath respondent/Company has said that the villagers had started agitation and they stopped the employees from working, which was for larger interest i.e. for construction of power station. On oath respondent/Company has said that the villagers had started agitation and they stopped the employees from working, which was for larger interest i.e. for construction of power station. Anyhow, by such arm twisting method, they succeeded to persuade the company to pay enhanced rate. If the parties had agreed not to raise any dispute after accepting enhanced amount, this Court, that too while exercising writ jurisdiction, may not ask the company not to ask for agreement or undertaking by the petitioners for not raising any dispute. It is up-to the petitioners either to accept enhanced money with condition as per out of court settlement or they may forgo to get enhanced amount. Moreover, it is not a case of infringement of constitutional right of the petitioners due to the simple reason that in accordance with law prescribed under the L.A. Act land in question was acquired. So far as reliance, which was placed by learned counsel for petitioners on TUKARAM KANA JOSHI’S CASE (supra) is concerned, the Court is of the opinion that the petitioners may not get any help from the said judgment. In the said case without completion of land acquisition proceeding, the petitioners were ousted that too without making payment of compensation amount and they were ousted from immovable property in the year 1964 while Article 31 of the Constitution was still intact and the right to property was a part of the Fundamental Rights under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. However, in the present case, land acquisition proceeding was initiated at the time when Right to Property is not treated as a Fundamental Right. 11. So far as other judgments, which were relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners regarding coercive agreement are concerned, in the facts and circumstances of the present case by way of inviting petitioners to get enhanced amount with undertaking may not be treated as a contract as defined under the Contract Act. It was simply an offer, which has been done, pursuant to agitation started by the villagers. If the petitioners are desirous to get the enhanced amount, they can only be allowed to get the same amount in terms of agreement, which has entered in between the parties outside the court settlement. It was simply an offer, which has been done, pursuant to agitation started by the villagers. If the petitioners are desirous to get the enhanced amount, they can only be allowed to get the same amount in terms of agreement, which has entered in between the parties outside the court settlement. In any view of facts and circumstances, as discussed above, it is not a fit case for issuance of any positive direction in favour of petitioners. 12. The writ petition stands dismissed.