A post-award agreement accepting compensation without protest bars the landowner’s right to seek a Section 18 reference.

The appeals arose from land acquisition for NTPC’s 2 × 600 MW power project at Village Barethi, District Chhatarpur.

NTPC challenged enhancement of compensation granted by the Reference Court in favour of the landowners.

In FA No. 1282 of 2025, the Collector had awarded ₹10,02,283 for Smt. Kasturi Bai’s 2/3 share in land measuring 2.972 hectares, while the Reference Court enhanced the compensation by treating the land as irrigated.

After the Collector’s award dated 5 December 2012 and before Kasturi Bai filed her reference on 22 January 2013, she executed a tripartite agreement dated 2 January 2013 and received an additional amount of ₹27,01,959.57, taking the total payment to approximately ₹37,04,242.90.

The agreement was not produced before the Reference Court and was tendered before the High Court with an application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.

In FA No. 1284 of 2025, four brothers—Arjun Singh, Ram Singh, Shivraj Singh and Gulab Singh—had obtained enhancement in a reference arising from the Collector’s award dated 9 November 2012.

Arjun, Gulab and Ram Singh had executed post-award agreements with NTPC and accepted additional lump-sum amounts, whereas Shivraj Singh had executed no such agreement.

Shivraj Singh independently appealed in FA No. 491 of 2025, seeking further compensation for an embankment and trees situated on the acquired land.

Whether a post-award agreement, under which a landowner accepts the awarded compensation and receives an additional settlement or rehabilitation amount, extinguishes the landowner’s right to seek a reference or prosecute a pending reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?

Whether the agreement dated 2 January 2013, produced for the first time in appeal, should be admitted as additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC and remitted for determination of its genuineness and voluntariness?

Whether Smt. Kasturi Bai was entitled to compensation for the entire acquired area of 2.972 hectares or only for her 2/3 share measuring approximately 1.951 hectares?

Whether the post-award agreements executed by Arjun Singh, Ram Singh and Gulab Singh barred them from prosecuting the reference, while Shivraj Singh—who executed no agreement—could continue to claim enhanced compensation?

Whether Shivraj Singh was entitled to additional compensation for the alleged embankment and ten trees standing on the acquired land?

The Court applied Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, under which a person interested may seek a reference against the Collector’s award only where the compensation has been received under protest; acceptance of compensation otherwise than under protest ordinarily bars a reference.

Sections 11(2) and 11(4) of the Act recognise consensual awards and provide that such agreements need not be registered under the Registration Act, 1908.

Relying principally on Wardington Lyngdoh v. Collector, (1995) 4 SCC 428, the Court held that a post-award agreement showing acceptance of the award without protest is binding and disentitles the landowner from pursuing a reference, unless the agreement is shown to be forged, fraudulent, coerced or otherwise invalid.

The Court also relied on Sanjay Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (2022) 7 SCC 247, concerning Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, holding that additional evidence may be admitted where it is necessary to enable the appellate court to pronounce an effective judgment or for another substantial cause, particularly where it bears directly on the core issue.

The appeal was considered under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act.

In FA No. 1282 of 2025, the Court found the post-award agreement directly material because, if genuine and voluntarily executed, it could conclusively determine the maintainability of Kasturi Bai’s reference.

Applying Sanjay Kumar Singh, the Court held that the agreement should be examined notwithstanding NTPC’s failure to produce it before the Reference Court, since it went to the root of the proceedings.

However, because Kasturi Bai disputed or could challenge the agreement on grounds such as fraud or coercion, the High Court remanded the matter for evidence on its execution, genuineness and voluntariness.

The Court also noted that Kasturi Bai owned only a 2/3 share, corresponding to approximately 1.951 hectares, and not the entire 2.972 hectares.

In relation to Arjun Singh, Ram Singh and Gulab Singh, the agreements had been produced before the Reference Court, the execution and receipt of the agreed amounts had been established, and the agreements expressly recorded acceptance of the Collector’s compensation and receipt of additional amounts as a complete rehabilitation and settlement package.

Applying Wardington Lyngdoh, the Court held that the agreements amounted to acceptance of the award without protest and therefore barred further prosecution of the references.

The fact that two agreements were executed after filing of the reference did not alter the result because the landowners subsequently accepted the settlement amounts and voluntarily transferred possession.

Shivraj Singh, however, was unaffected because he had executed no agreement and therefore retained the right to prosecute his reference.

His claim for embankment compensation failed because he produced no valuation, construction-cost evidence or other material establishing the monetary value of the alleged structure.

His claim for additional compensation for ten trees succeeded, as the existing assessment of approximately ₹250 per tree was considered inadequate; the Court awarded an additional ₹3,000 per tree.

If proved without fraud or coercion, the reference was to be closed; otherwise, the Reference Court was to reassess compensation, limited to Kasturi Bai’s 2/3 share measuring approximately 1.951 hectares.

FA No. 1284 of 2025 was allowed against Arjun Singh, Ram Singh and Gulab Singh, whose references were held non-maintainable because of their binding post-award agreements.

It was dismissed against Shivraj Singh, and the enhanced compensation remained payable only in respect of his 1/4 share.

FA No. 491 of 2025 was partly allowed.

Shivraj Singh was denied compensation for the embankment but was awarded an additional ₹30,000 for ten trees, together with applicable solatium, interest and other statutory benefits.