Order Samarendra Pratap Singh, J. On requisition, vide letter no. ERHQ/NP/41, dated 15.05.2007, of National Thermal Power Corporation, the State Government decided to acquire lands of 9 (nine) villages for the purposes of setting up of Nabi Nagar Thermal Power Project, titled Bhartiya Rail Bijlee Company Limited, at Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as “the Company”). The nine villages, whose lands were placed under acquisition, in terms of the requisition aforementioned, are; (i) Pirauta (ii) Saleya (iii) Kajarain (iv) Egharas (v) Surar (vi) Mangabar (vii) Khaira (viii) Kerka and (ix) Dhundhua. 2. The rate of land, for payment of compensation, was determined on the basis of criteria contained in Clause (1) of the Bihar Land Acquisition Re-settlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2007. On the basis of the criteria laid down in the said Policy, the value of the land, under acquisition, was determined at Rs. 5,16,221.83/- per acre for five villages, namely, Pirauta, Saleya, Kajarain, Egharas, Surar. The rate, determined for remaining four villages, to which the writ petitioners belonged, namely, Mangabar, Khaira, Kerka and Dhundhua, was at Rs. 2,61,317.61/- per acre and awarded sum was paid in the year 2009 itself to those, whose lands had been acquired including the writ petitioners, and it was, in the year 2009 itself, that the possession of the lands was taken over by the respondents. 3. Almost two years after receipt of the awarded sums, some persons, including the two appellants, who belonged to village Mangabar, Khaira, Kerka and Dhundhua, filed a writ petition, bearing C.W.J.C. No. 18253 of 2011, seeking direction for payment of compensation for the lands acquired at the rate of Rs. 5,16,281.83/- per acre, as had been determined for lands acquired in other five villages, for the Nabi Nagar Thermal Power Project, in the light of Government Instruction No. 15/D.L.A.07/06-923R, dated 18.05.2010, contained in Clauses 1.1 (Kha) (ii), (iii) and (v) of Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Under the said instructions, the Government took a decision to pay maximum price fixed for any land acquired under the same transaction. 4. It is relevant to point out herein that all the writ petitioners belonged to one or the other four villages, where the rate of land was determined at Rs.2,61,317.61/- per acre for payment of compensation. 5. Under the said instructions, the Government took a decision to pay maximum price fixed for any land acquired under the same transaction. 4. It is relevant to point out herein that all the writ petitioners belonged to one or the other four villages, where the rate of land was determined at Rs.2,61,317.61/- per acre for payment of compensation. 5. It is not the case of the writ petitioners that any of the oustees of the four villages, namely, Mangabar, Khaira, Kerka and Dhundhua, was paid at a rate higher than what was paid to the writ petitioners including the appellants. 6. The stand of the official respondents, in CWJC No. 18253 of 2011, was that though the Government instructions, dated 18.05.2010, had indicated grant of higher rate, the said instructions were subsequently revised vide Government memo, dated 24.05.2011, clarifying therein that the earlier instructions of the Government, dated 18.05.2010, would be applicable to cases, where award had not been prepared under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 7. It was the further case of the respondents, in CWJC No. 18253 of 2011, that the appellants resorted to agitation and even restrained the employees of the Thermal Power Project from entering into the work site hampering, thus, the project on a number of days. The respondents, in the interest of the project, held a meeting with the dissatisfied factions and agreed to pay compensation on the same rate as had been paid to the land oustees of the 5 (five) villages, namely, Pirauta, Saleya, Kajarain, Egharas and Surar, at Rs.5,16,221.83/- per acre as against the rate of Rs. 2,61,317.61/- per acre determined for the oustees of four villages, namely, Mangabar, Khaira, Kerka and Dhundhua, though legally they had no right to make such a claim. 8. In terms of the out of court settlement, so arrived at, the compensation, at enhanced rate, was to be paid only after the writ petitioners had entered into an agreement with the Company that no further claim for compensation would be made. The appellants, though wanted additional compensation at the revised rate, as indicated hereinbefore, refused to enter into such an agreement. 9. The appellants, though wanted additional compensation at the revised rate, as indicated hereinbefore, refused to enter into such an agreement. 9. The learned single Judge noticed that a large number of beneficiaries had voluntarily accepted the compensation and only a handful of persons had resorted to arm twisting in order to extract undue advantage under the notion that the respondents would, ultimately, agree to all their demands, because it would be difficult for the respondents to abandon such a big power project. The learned single Judge observed that the appellants have already succeeded in persuading the Company to make payment at the enhanced rate, though they had received the awarded sums, in the year 2009, in terms of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, read with Bihar Land Acquisition Re-settlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2007. 10. Having arrived at the conclusion, as mentioned above, the writ petition, namely, CWJC No. 18253 of 2011, has been dismissed with observation that if the writ petitioners are desirous to get the enhanced amount, they can only be allowed to get the same in terms of the agreement, which had been entered into between the parties as an out of court settlement. 11. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, namely, CWJC No. 18253 of 2011, two of the writ petitioners have preferred this appeal. 12. The appellants, in this appeal, have taken the same stand as they had taken in CWJC No. 18253 of 2011. They state that the insistence of the respondents to make payment on enhanced rate only on entering into an agreement is unlawful and violative of Sections 15 and 23 of the Contract Act, 1872, as well as Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India. The appellants state that the villagers of Mangabar, Khaira, Kerka and Dhundhua had the right to receive compensation at the same rate as has been awarded to the oustees of the other five villages. 13. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State as well as learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Company and Nabi Nagar Thermal Power Project have defended the order of learned single Judge as just and legal. 14. 13. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State as well as learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Company and Nabi Nagar Thermal Power Project have defended the order of learned single Judge as just and legal. 14. Coming to the merit of the present appeal, it needs to be made clear that the National Thermal Power Corporation, through its Deputy General Manager, made a requisition to the Government of Bihar to acquire lands of nine villages for construction of Nabi Nagar Thermal Power Project titled as Bhartiya Rail Bijlee Company Limited. A notification, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was accordingly published, on 27.09.2008, in daily newspapers, namely, “Aaj” and “Piyari Urdu” as well as in the District Gazette, on 13.09.2008, for acquisition of the lands, of those villages for installation of Thermal Power Project. The nine villages, under acquisition, are: (i) Pirauta, (ii) Saleya, (iii) Kajarain, (iv) Egharas, (v) Surar, (vi) Mangabar, (vii) Khaira, (viii) Kerka and (ix) Dhundhua. The declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, was made in both the newspapers on 02.10.2008. The Joint Secretary, Department of Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, directed, on 02.02.2009, the Collector to make order of acquisition, in the light of the provisions of Sections 7 and 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. On 16.03.2009, notices, under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, were given to the land holders to make their claim. The authority concerned made enquiry under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for determination of compensation in terms of the guidelines embodied in Bihar Land Acquisition Re-settlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2007. An enquiry was made under Section 11(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The rate of compensation was determined on the basis of the guidelines provided in the Bihar Land Acquisition Re-settlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2007. The compensation for the lands of five villages, namely, Pirauta, Saleya, Kajarain, Egharas and Surar was determined @ Rs. 5,16,221.83/- per acre; whereas compensation for the lands of other villages, namely, Mangabar, Khaira, Kerka and Dhundhua was fixed @ Rs. 2,61,317.61/- per acre. Most of the oustees of all these nine villages, including the appellants, received the awarded sum under Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, without any demur or objection. 15. 5,16,221.83/- per acre; whereas compensation for the lands of other villages, namely, Mangabar, Khaira, Kerka and Dhundhua was fixed @ Rs. 2,61,317.61/- per acre. Most of the oustees of all these nine villages, including the appellants, received the awarded sum under Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, without any demur or objection. 15. The appellants herein did not even apply for making of reference to the Civil Court in terms of the provisions of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. If any such reference had been sought for, but not made, the person or persons, who had applied for making of such a reference, ought to have, at the relevant point of time, taken recourse to law. Nothing, however, was done and the award attained finality. 16. After two years of acquisition, it was only in the year 2011 that the appellants as well as the other writ petitioners, who are residents of villages Mangabar, Khaira, Kerka and Dhundhua, began to demand compensation at the same rate as had been paid to the occupants of other five villages. The State Government, in the year 2007, came out with a policy, namely, Bihar Land Acquisition Re-settlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2007, embodying therein uniform guidelines for determination of rate of land depending upon the nature of their use. The Government, vide its instructions, dated 18.05.2010, decided to grant compensation at the same rate to all the villagers, whose lands were acquired in the same transaction. The Government instructions, dated 18.05.2010, have been revised, vide Government memo, dated 24.05.2011, stating therein that the guidelines, contained therein, would be applicable to cases, where award has not been finalized. 17. There is no dispute that the appellants have received their awarded sum in the year 2009. Situated thus, it becomes clear that 2010 instructions, which stood replaced by 2011 instructions, would not ipso facto be applicable to the cases of the appellants. 18. Though the appellants herein had received the awarded sum, the appellants, taking the law into their own hand, had forced almost closure of the work of the Thermal Power Project. Situated thus, it becomes clear that 2010 instructions, which stood replaced by 2011 instructions, would not ipso facto be applicable to the cases of the appellants. 18. Though the appellants herein had received the awarded sum, the appellants, taking the law into their own hand, had forced almost closure of the work of the Thermal Power Project. The respondents, in such circumstances, agreed, under pressure, to extend the benefit, which had accrued to a person under the Government instructions, dated 18.05.2010/24.05.2011, to the appellants subject to the condition that the parities concerned would enter into an agreement to the effect that the settlement, so arrived at, was final and conclusive and no further claim for compensation would be made. The respondents were, and still are, ready to make payment at the enhanced rate of Rs. 5,16,222.83/-, which was paid to others of the said five villages. 19. The plea of the appellants herein that insistence upon entering into the agreement by the respondents is unlawful and contrary to Sections 15 and 23 of the Contract Act is devoid of merit and is only to be noticed to be rejected. 20. Section 15 of the Contract Act defines “Coercion” as committing, or threatening to commit, any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code or the unlawful detaining, or threatening to detain, any property, to the prejudice of any person whatever, with the intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement. 21. Section 23 of the Contract Act, which enumerates as to what considerations and objects are lawful and what consideration or objects shall be recorded as unlawful, read as under:- “23. What considerations and objects are lawful, and what not- The consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless- It is forbidden by law; or is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law; or is fraudulent; or involves or implies injury to the person or property of another; or the Court regards it as immoral, or opposed to public policy. In each of these cases, the consideration or object of an agreement is said to be unlawful. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void”. 22. It would appear from the admitted materials on record that the award was prepared in the year 2009 and the appellants accepted the same without any objection. In each of these cases, the consideration or object of an agreement is said to be unlawful. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void”. 22. It would appear from the admitted materials on record that the award was prepared in the year 2009 and the appellants accepted the same without any objection. The appellants, at no point of time, while receiving the awarded sums, complained that they had received the awarded sums under any coercion. No reference was sought for in terms of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, nor was any reference made and the appellants herein, at no stage, came to this Court seeking a direction to be issued to make reference for determination of the correct sum to be paid as compensation to the appellants. 23. Further-more, I find that compensation was paid at such a rate as was warranted by Bihar Land Acquisition Re-settlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2007. Later on, the Government, vide its instructions, dated 18.05.2010, came out with a policy to pay compensation at the same rate to all villagers, whose lands had been acquired under the same transaction. The Government revised its policy, in the year 2011, clarifying therein that the said policy would be applicable, where award had not been received. Nonetheless, as, on account of agitation launched by the appellants and the writ petitioners, the work of the Thermal Power Corporation was getting hampered, the respondents, under such duress, agreed for an out of court settlement subject to the condition that the appellants would enter into an agreement, as mentioned hereinbefore. By no stretch of imagination, such an offer can be said to be unlawful or one involving coercion. The learned single Judge has rightly observed that it is for the appellants either to accept or not to accept the offer of the respondents. 24. I find that though the demand of the appellants, for payment of higher rates to which they may not have been entitled to, has been acceded to by the respondents, yet the appellants” grievances seem to be unending as they do not want to execute any agreement despite the fact that they could not have had any grievance, now, with respect to the rate of compensation, which the respondents have agreed to pay. The learned single Judge has noticed that except for some, a large number of oustees have accepted the awarded sums and the awards stand satisfied. 25. I agree with the view of the learned single Judge that on account of agitation launched by the appellants, the respondents have come out with an out of court settlement by making the offer to pay compensation at the enhanced rate as desired by the appellants subject to entering into agreement in larger interest of public project. It is up to the appellants to accept the offer by entering into an agreement or not. In case the appellants are agreeable to the offer and enter into an agreement, the respondents would fulfill their commitment of making payment at the enhanced rate without any delay. 26. With the aforesaid observations, this appeal stands dismissed. 27. No order as to costs. I.A. Ansari, J. While completely agreeing with the conclusions arrived at, and the directions passed by, my learned brother, Samarendra Pratap Singh, J., I consider it apposite to add a few lines to make a little explicit the nature of the offer, which the respondents concerned have, in the present case, made. 2. With regard to the above, it may be pointed out that Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, prescribes two distinct periods of limitation for seeking reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. If a person, who makes an application for compensation, was present or represented before the Collector at the time, when the award was made, the application for reference has to be filed within six weeks from the date of the award. In a case, however, where the applicant was not present or was not represented before the Collector, at the time of making of the award, Section 18(2) provides that such an application for reference shall be made within six weeks from the date of receipt of the notice or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire. 3. 3. The Supreme Court, in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer [ AIR 1961 SC 1500 : (1962) 1 SCR 676 ], having considered the legal character of an award, which the Collector in a proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, makes, concluded to the effect that the determination of the amount of compensation by the Collector and making of the award is, in law, nothing more than an offer or tender of the compensation to the owner of the property acquisitioned. It was held, in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh (supra), that if the owner accepts the offer, no further proceeding is required to be taken. Consequently, the awarded sum has to be paid and the proceedings, for compensation, shall stand concluded. If, however, the owner does not accept the offer, Section 18 gives the owner, points out the Supreme Court, in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh (supra), statutory right of having the question of adequacy of compensation determined by the District Court and whatever amount is determined by the Court, as compensation, would be binding on the owner as well as the Collector. It has been further pointed out, in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh (supra), that where the reference is made or sought for, the amount, judicially determined by the Court, would be the compensation payable to the owner of the property acquired and, on such determination, the acquisition proceeding would stand concluded. 4. From the above scheme of land acquisition, it becomes abundantly clear that having accepted award without seeking a reference to be made by taking recourse to Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, a person cannot, thereafter, agitate that the compensation, which had been paid to him, was inadequate. 5. Had the appellants sought for a reference to be made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and had such reference not been made, the appellants could have come to this Court by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Collector concerned to make a reference, as envisaged by Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. No such step has been taken by the appellants and, hence, the award given, in the present case, by the Collector stood finality. 6. No such step has been taken by the appellants and, hence, the award given, in the present case, by the Collector stood finality. 6. In the backdrop of the law, which has been pointed out above, it becomes clear that in the case at hand, when the appellants had not sought for any reference to be made in terms of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and when the appellants had, thus, accepted the awarded sums, they could not have legally turned around and armed twisted the respondents to pay further sum or sums of money as compensation. 7. Notwithstanding the fact, that the appellants had no legal right to claim any further sum or sums of money, as compensation, the respondents concerned have, under duress, offered to make, as already discussed by my learned brother, Samarendra Pratap Singh, J., further sums of money as compensation, and, hence, it is, now, for the appellants to accept or not to accept the money, which has been offered to be paid to them by the respondents concerned. 8. I would like to further clarify that the sum of money, which the respondents concerned, has offered to pay subject to entering into an agreement, as indicated above, is nothing but a gratuitous payment and a Writ Court would not, therefore, force payment of such an amount unless the appellants enter into an agreement in terms of the offer, which has been made by the respondents concerned.