What are the rights of project affected persons who entered into agreements for lower compensation to claim parity with similarly situated persons receiving higher compensation later? What is the validity of contracts that are opposed to public policy or violate Section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872? How to determine if a High Court's refusal to direct compensation parity constitutes a serious error when other similarly situated persons receive higher compensation?

Key Points: - The Appellants surrendered plots and accepted Rs. 50,000/- compensation based on a 2006 resolution but later sought higher compensation after other villagers received Rs. 3,70,055/- (!) (!) (!) . - The High Court dismissed the writ petition, ruling that the Appellants were disentitled to further claims because they had entered into a binding agreement and belonged to a different class than those who did not (!) . - The Supreme Court held the agreements were unreasonable, unconstitutional, and violative of Section 23 of the Contract Act as they were opposed to public policy (!) . - Citing Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly, the Court struck down the refusal to ensure parity, declaring the High Court's decision a serious error (!) (!) . - The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the Appellants were declared entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,70,055/- (!) . - The official Respondents were directed to pay the balance compensation amount within three months (!) .

What are the rights of project affected persons who entered into agreements for lower compensation to claim parity with similarly situated persons receiving higher compensation later?

What is the validity of contracts that are opposed to public policy or violate Section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872?

How to determine if a High Court's refusal to direct compensation parity constitutes a serious error when other similarly situated persons receive higher compensation?