S.

S JAIN SUBODH LAW COLLEGE

MANSAROVAR, JAIPUR

Affiliated to Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Law University

Session 2020-21

Subject – CONTRACT ACT

TOPIC:-DOCTRINE OF RESTITUTION

Submitted To: Submitted By:

Mrs.Anjali Bhatia Mukul Maheshwari

Assistant professor of law BA.LL.B student

1st Sem (Section A)

 DECALARATION

I, Mukul Maheshwari do hereby declare that, this project titled “DOCTRINE OF

RESTITUTION” is an guidance of Dr.Anjali Bhatia (Asst. prof. of Law) at S.S jain Subodh
Law College in fulfillment for the award of the degree of B.A.LL.B. at the Bhimrao
Ambedkar Law University.

I also declare that , this work is original, except where assistance from other resources has
been taken and necessary acknowledgement for the same has been made at appropriate
places. I further declare that, this work has not been submitted either in whole or in part, for
any degree or equivalent in any other institution.

Date: July16, 2021 Mukul Maheshwari

Place: Jaipur 1st sem (SEC-A)

 CERTIFICATE

To whomsoever it may concern

This is to certify that the Project entitled “DOCTRINE OF RESTITUTION” submitted by

MUKUL MAHESHWARI in fulfillment for the award of the degree of BA.LL.B in S.S Jain
Subodh Law College, Jaipur is the product of research carried out under my guidance and
supervision.

Dr. Anjali Bhatia

Asst. Prof. of Law

S.S jain Subodh Law college

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I acknowledge with profundity, my obligation to Almighty god and my parents for giving me
the grace to accomplish my work, without which this project would not have been possible.

I express my heartfelt gratitude to my respected faculty, Dr. Anjali Bhatia(Asst.Prof.of Law)

for providing me with valuable suggestions to complete this dissertation.

I am especially to all my faculty members at S.S jain subodh Law college who have helped
me imbibe the basic research and writing skills.

Lastly, I take upon myself.the drawbacks and limitations of this study, if any.

Date: July 16, 2021

Place: Jaipur

Mukul Maheshwari
 INDEX

1. Introduction
2. Meaning Of Restitution
3. Historical Background
4. Comparison
5. Essentials Of Restitution
6. Legal Provisions
7. Difference
8. Exceptions Of Restitution
9. Relevant case Laws
10. Conclusion
11. References
 INTRODUCTION
The law of restitution is concerned with the award of a generic group of remedies which arise
by operation of law and which have one common function, namely to deprive the defendant
of a gain rather than to compensate the claimant for loss suffered. These are called the
restitutionary remedies. Whilst there is a great deal more to the subject than this remedial
aspect, since it is also vital to determine what circumstances will trigger the award of
restitutionary remedies, it is only because there are a group of remedies which have a
common function of depriving defendants of gains that we are able to assert that there is an
independent body of law which can be called the law of restitution. To understand what these
remedies are, how they operate and when they are available requires examination of a
complex body of law. To assist in the understanding of this law it is necessary to identify and
analyse the principles which underlie the rules.

MEANING OF RESTITUTION
Restitution means the restoration of the benefit and putting the plaintiff in the original
position that he stands before the contract and restraining the defendant from making a
wrongful gain. The consideration should be made only if he gets anything on return. When
there is no benefit, the act is done or consideration paid or benefit is to be restored to the
victim. The restitution1 can be applied according to the classification of damages. In the
criminal case, the alleged defendant has to compensate the victim for pecuniary losses
sustained. The compensation shall be full or partial compensation paid to the victim. The civil
action can be taken against the defendant by restoring the position of the plaintiff as before
the improper action by another party. Under Sec.144 of the Civil Procedure Code, the
successful party will be placed in the status quo ante and empowers the court to order
restitution when a decree or an order is varied or reversed in any appeal, revision or other
proceedings. If the party applying for restitution has to lost anything or deprived of the decree
or order of the court or entitled to the benefit on the revising decree or order and the decree or
order must be varied or reversed for restitution. Restitution2 in normal sense means to restore
the benefit which a person has obtained and its main purpose is First to restore the position of
victim .i.e ‘ Plaintiff ‘ in case of a contract to the original position which he enjoyed before
entering into contract and secondly to prevent the unjust enrichment of the defendant i.e. to
stop him from making wrongful gains which he is not entitled as per law to make.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Restitution is a concept in the Indian Criminal Justice System. It has an established position
in law and justice. The historical development of the restitution can be traced back from the

1
https://www.wallcliffslawfirm.com/uploads/newsletter-files/2020091615040389648-
Legal_Angle_-_September_2020_-_Issue_03.pdf
2
https://blog.ipleaders.in/what-is-the-doctrine-of-restitution/
middle ages and Germanic Common Laws. Any civilized system provides remedies for
unjust enrichment or unjust benefit, in such case restitution becomes the remedy which means
restore the things to the proper owner. The doctrine of restitution has its applicability in
criminal law, maritime law and law of torts or civil law.
The roots of restitution can be traced to some of the earliest common law proceedings in debt
and account and, due to procedural difficulties in these actions, to some of the first bills in
chancery. Because of the popularity of seeking relief in chancery, the jealous common law
courts developed the action of assumpsit. The history of this action is long and confusing. But
in brief, assumpsit was originally a tort action for negligent performance of an undertaking.
One branch of the action, called indebitatus assumpsit, then became concurrent with debt for
a simple contract, later became available for the implied in fact contract ,and finally picked
up the implied in law or quasi-contract."
In the famous case of Moses v. Macferlan3, decided in 1760, Lord Mansfield established
"unjust enrichment" as the basis of the action of indebitatus assumpsit, or quasi-contract as it
was later termed , and marked it as a separate and distinct common law obligation. The
chancery courts, however, were reluctant to relinquish jurisdiction once gained, and
concurrent remedies in equity remained available to a person who had been deprived of his
property by fraud, mistake or duress, as well as for breach of a fiduciary duty. These
alternative equitable remedies were by no means ignored, due partly to the icy reception of
Moses v. Macferlan by many English lawyers who were not quite ready for so vague a
concept as unjust enrichment.
The first comprehensive attempt to systematically treat this ubiquitous field of the law was
made by the American Law Institute in the Restatement of Restitution, published in 1937.
The Restatement reporters, Professors Warren Seavey and Austin Scott, forged boldly ahead,
bringing the great bulk of restitutionary remedies, both legal and equitable, under the
umbrella of "restitution," and declared "tort," "contract," and "restitution" to be the three
primary areas in the overall classification of the law. The basis of the "restitution"
classification is, of course, unjust enrichment .Although the Restatement traversed great areas
of the law in the material that was included, it was not a clean sweep

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

 INDIAN SCENERIO:-

Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act deals with the doctrine of the restitution. When an
agreement is discovered to be void, or when a contract becomes void, any person who has
received any advantage under such agreement or contract is bound to restore it, or to make
compensation for it, to the person from whom he received it. The principle laid down in this
section is that when the parties have entered into valid a contract and some benefits have been
passed under it and subsequently the contract is either discovered to be void, the party who
has received the benefits must restore them to the other.

 IN ENGLAND:-

Introduction A contract as we know is an agreement which is enforceable by law according to

section 2(h) of the Indian contract act 1872 and that agreement is formed through a promise

3
(1760) 2 Bur 1005; 97 ER 676, All ER Rep 581
or a set of promises which forms the consideration. The consideration maybe in the form of
cash or kind depending on the circumstances.The reason for a contract is to establish the
promises that both the parties have made. A legal doctrine is usually formed by a precedent
case in the common law and through which judgements can be made in a given case. It
consists of a set of rules, steps or test in order to achieve the desired results. The doctrine that
we are going to talk about here is the Doctrine of restitution. Restitution in simple terms is the
return or restoration to a previous condition or position for what the party has suffered like
loss, injured or destroyed. i.e. to put one in a situation as he was before he had entered into a
contract. The Doctrine of restitution was derived from the English law. It was made in order
to restore or compensate for what has been caused by a minor in the agreement. In case a
minor enters into a contract by misrepresenting his enters into an agreement, then he can only
be compelled to restore it if only the following item can be found in his possession. This
doctrine can only apply to goods and property and not any financial losses. In an English case
Attorney General v. Blake, the defendant was an M16 under an employment contract he had
signed an agreement never to disclose his secrets. He then became a double agent for the
soviet union in 1951. After he had escaped from prison he had fled back to the soviet union
and wrote a book. The book was published and Blake received a certain amount for it. The
crown had brought an action seeking restitution. It was held in court that If the normal
remedy is inadequate and the circumstances are exceptional then the court can order the
defendant to account for all profits. This was an exceptional case because it was in the public
interest to protect the secrets of the secret service. The doctrine of restitution in Indian
contract act. The section 65 will not come into place if the agreement was void-ab-initio .i.e
void from the very beginning . In the case of Kuju Collieries v. Jharkhand mines ltd the
plaintiff had entered into a contract for lease of coal mines from the defendant in lieu of
consideration, however the deed was hit with the illegality under the act passed before the
contract was made, since the lease of property was never conveyed to the plaintiff and the
contract was void by operation of law. It was held that the plaintiff was already in the
business of mining and could consult solicitors, hence there was no reason for the plaintiff to
be in ignorance of the law and thus the contract was void ab initio. Doctrine of restitutuion
usually plays an important role in a minors agreement. As mentioned before this doctrine can
be used as a remedy in case any of the parties have suffered a loss in the agreement. It can be
seen in the case of Mohori Bibee v. Dhurmodas Ghose The plaintiff a minor had mortgaged
his house in favor of the defendant, a money lender who gave a loan amount of rs.20000. A
part of this amount was advanced to him. The attorney on behalf of the defendant had
received information that the plaintiff was still a minor. Thus the minor started this action
stating that he was underage when he had executed the mortgage and therefore it was
cancelled. The defenedant had relied upon Section 65 of the Indian contract act,1872
according to which a person is required to return or compensate the party if any benefit is
received by him under the contract. But it was held that the following section can be applied
only to voidable contracts and not minors agreement. There are certain exceptions to the
Doctrine of Restitution When an agreement is void : If an agreement is found to be void from
the very beginning .i.e void-ab-initio then the following doctrine cannot be used in order to
bring relief to either of the parties. Where the amount is in monetary terms : When an
agreement is entered with a minor or intoxicated person: Contract which is made with a
person of unsound mind or who is being intoxicated then the doctrine3 cannot be used in the
following situation. Difference between restitution and compensation Although both
restitution and compensation are very similar in nature there are some distinctions b y which
you could tell them apart. Restitution cannot be offered if the victim has suffered any
monetary loss and is only applicable for good and property whereas compensation to the
victim can be made in any form either in kind or cash depends upon the loss and is not being
restricted to anything particular. Restitution is usually calculated on the basis of how much a
victim has gained from this contract whereas a compensation is calculated on the basis of
how much loss the victim has suffered in the contract. Conclusion We have now understood
that the doctrine of restitution aims to put a person in a position as he was before the
agreement has become void. It sees what the other party has gained from this agreement and
to return it back to him. Thus this remedy is very useful especially in the case of a minor

ESSENTIALS OF RESTITUTION

1. One party has entered into a contract with another for consideration.
2. There was some consideration involved in the said contract.
3. Both parties were competent to enter into a contract
4. Thereafter one party failed to perform his part of the contract or the contract became
void due to any unforeseen condition.
5. Now the party which has paid any consideration as the advance is entitled to recover
the same from the other party and other party is not entitled to receive an unfair
advantage over it.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Section 65 of Indian Contract Act 1872 mainly deals with the doctrine of restitution and it
relates to the obligation of the person who has received some advantage under void
agreement or contract. This section starts from the very basis that there being an agreement or
contract and if there was no agreement or contract then the doctrine of restitution cannot
come into play. This doctrine is based on a very common rule of consideration which means
that a person pays consideration only when he gets something in return.

Provisions of Section 65 apply only when an agreement at a subsequent stage is discovered to

be void or when a contract becomes void later on by one person or the other. But Section 65
will never come into play if the contract was void-ab-initio i.e void from the very beginning.
 APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 65

Section 65 is applicable only when an agreement was valid when it was entered into and
became void only at a future date. Moreover if the agreement was entered into between a
major person being the plaintiff and the minor defendant in this case then doctrine of
restitution will not be applied.

IN CASE OF INFANT
If the infant obtains property or goods by misrepresenting his age, he can be compelled to
restore it, but only when the goods is in possession is known as the doctrine of restitution.
Where the infant has sold or converted such goods, he cannot be made to repay the value of
the goods as it is a void contract.

RESTITUTION V/S COMPENSATION

Most of the times these two termed as treated to have a similar meaning but the difference
between them lies in the manner in which monetary award is calculated for instance in
compensation the award is calculated based on how much loss the plaintiff suffered, whereas
in restitution the award is calculated based on how much gains the defendant has earned.
However on certain occasions on the discretion of judge based on the facts of a particular
case the judge can very much give a choice to the plaintiff to choose from restitution and
compensation.

RESTITUTION AND UNJUST ENRICHENT

The concept of unjust enrichment is basic to the subject of restitution, and is approached as a
fundamental principle. The meaning of the term 'restitution' has been extended to include not
only the restoration or giving back of something to its rightful owner, but also compensation,
reimbursement, indemnification, or reparation for benefits derived from, or for loss or injury
caused. Although unjust enrichment is often referred to or regarded as a ground for
restitution, it is perhaps more accurate to regard it as a prerequisite, for usually there can be
no restitution without unjust enrichment. The concept of unjust enrichment has gradually
become wider in application and the Courts have started applying the concept of unjust
enrichment to various issues such as erroneously collected tax. The doctrine of unjust
enrichment is evolving through interpretations by the Courts and is considered to be an
independent source of rights and obligations, ranked next to the law of contract and tort, as
part of the law of obligations. It is an independent source of rights and obligations.
 Exceptions to Doctrine of Restitution

1. Where an agreement is known to be void:- This doctrine will not be applied for an

agreement known to be void e.g, where an agreement is for some illegal act or an
impossible act like an agreement that A will pay B Rs 10,000 if B picks stars from the
sky. A pays Rs 500 as security to B, now being an impossible act to perform A cannot
recover even his Rs 500.
2. Where an agreement has been entered into between incompetent
persons:- Contract entered into between incompetent persons like a person suffering
from insanity, intoxication or a minor will not invite this doctrine to play.
3. Where the party is required to give some earnest money as security and later on
defaults:- This provision deals with a situation like paying application money for a
residential scheme. Now if a person fails to future allotment money then his
application money will also be forfeited and he can not claim his earlier earnest
money by revoking the doctrine of restitution.

REMEDIES AVAILABLE FOR RESTITUTION

Under Indian Contract Act, 1872 various remedies have been provided under Sections 68 to
72 which deal with various circumstances of unjust enrichment. The remedies are as follows:

1. According to section 68 of the Act, if a person is not capable of entering into a

contract and he is supplied with the basic necessities of life, the amount for supplying
the necessaries will be recovered form the property of that person. For an instance, A,
a physically disabled person, is supplied food and other necessaries required for his
survival by B. B is entitled to recover that amount from the property of A.
2. Section 69 states that a person who is interested in the payment of money which
another is bound by law to pay, and who therefore pays it is entitled to be reimbursed
by the other.
3. According to Section 70, if a person, by mistake or somehow, not gratuitously, does
any act or delivers something to other and the other person uses or gains some benefit
out of that service or gift, the former shall be entitled for compensation to the extent
of the benefit he derives. Thus, it simply says if any person gains something out of the
act or service of another, he shall make restitute the same. For example, if A, a
delivery boy, unknowing leaves some gifts to the house of B. B uses those gifts. B is
liable to pay reasonable amount of gifts to A.
4. According to Section 71 of Act, a person who finds goods belonging to another and
takes them into his custody is subject to the same responsibilities as that of bailee. He
will also a duty to return the goods after the true owner is find. He is supposed to take
reasonable care of goods and not to make unauthorized use etc. He shall be liable to
make compensation if he has not taken reasonable care of goods or, if he makes
unauthorized use of the goods or, if he doesn’t return the good within a specified time
 after the owner is found. He shall be liable for any loss or destruction of the goods. He
is supposed to take care of the goods like a prudent man. If he fails, he will make
compensation.
5. According to Section 72 of the Act, if someone gets money or receives something
from another, by mistake, or by coercion, the former must repay or return it.

LANDMARK CASES OF RESTITUTION

1. The Bank Of Rajasthan Ltd. vs Sh. Pala Ram Gupta 4

FACTS:-  PLAINTIFF filed this suit, inter alia, alleging that it is a Banking company having
its registered office at Clock Tower, Udaipur (Rajasthan) and a branch office at 82, Janpath,
New Delhi. Plaint has been signed, verified and suit instituted by L. N. Sapra (Manager of the
said branch) who is the principal officer and also holds power of attorney in his favour.
Defendants who are the owners of Plot No. G-39, Green Park, New Delhi, wanted to
construct a building thereon. They approached the said branch of plaintiff Bank for grant of
loan being short of funds. Bank agreed to advance loan of Rs. 75,000/- to them on the terms
and conditions set out in the letter dated 25th August, 1975 salient features of this letter have
been given inub-paras (a) to (i) of Para 4 of the plaint. It is further alleged that defendants on
3rd September, 1975 created equitable mortgage of the property to be constructed on said
plot G-39, Green Park by depositing title deeds with the said branch of the Bank. Total
amount of loan of Rs. 75,000. 00 was received by the defendants from plaintiff by 11th
December, 1975. It is stated that a registered lease deed between the parties was executed on
9. 12. 1975 and the Bank agreed to take on rent the entire first floor and mezzanine floor of
said property for running a branch therein.

JUDGEMENT:- SINCE the defendants have failed to establish that concerned officials of
plaintiff Bank were aware since the inception of transaction that building to be constructed on
said plot No. G-39 could be used only for residential purposes, taking note of the ratio in
Kuju Collieries Ltd's. case (supra), the defendants cannot legally resist repayment of
aforesaid amount of Rs. 75,000. 00 with interest on the ground of agreement contained in
aforesaid letter dated 25th August, 1975 as also lease deed dated 9th October, 1975 being
void under Section 23 of the Contract Act. Further, as is manifest from aforementioned
Clause 15 of lease deed, the plaintiff Bank had been assured by the defendants that said two
floors could be used by it for commercial purposes and they even undertook to compensate
the Bank if any penalty was levied by any Authority whatsoever including Municipal
Corporation of Delhi during the continuance of lease period. Thus the plea taken in said para
10 of the written statement that there was no false representation by the defendants that
building could be used for commercial purposes deserves to be repelled being dishonest.
Suffice it to say that defendants have not led any cogent evidence in support of yet another
plea taken in said para of written statement about there being no prohibition from DDA

4
AIR 2001 Delhi 58, 2000 (57) DRJ 863
regarding use of building for running a branch by Bank. Running of some of the branches of
Banks in nearby localities cannot be taken as proof that there was no prohibition from DDA
in regard to use of the defendants' building which admittedly is situated in a residential area
for Banking purposes. Universal Plast Ltd. and Malladi Seetharama Sastry's cases (supra),
were rendered on the facts having no similarity with the facts of present case and, therefore,
they are of no assistance on the issues on hand.

2. Mohori Bibee v/s Dharmodas Ghose5

FACTS:- Dharmodas Ghose was the respondent in this case. He was a minor (i.e. has not
completed the 18 years of age) and he was the sole owner of his immovable property. The
mother of Dharmodas Ghose was authorized as his legal custodian by Calcutta High court.
When he went for the mortgage of his own immovable property which was done in the favor
of appellant i.e. Brahmo Dutta, he was a minor and secured this mortgage deed for Rs. 20,000
at 12% interest rate as per year. Brahmo Dutta who was a money lender at that time and he
secured a loan or amount of Rs. 20,000, and the management of his business was in the
control of Kedar Nath and Kedar Nath acted as the attorney of Brahmo Dutta. Dharmodas
Ghose’s mother sent a notification to Brahmo Dutta informing him about the minority of
Dharmodas Ghose on the date on which such mortgage deed was commenced, but the
proportion or the sum of loan that was actually provided was less then Rs. 20,000. The
representative of the defendant, who actually acted instead of on behalf of money lender has
given money to the plaintiff, who was a minor and he fully had knowledge about the
incompetency of the plaintiff  to perform or enter into contract and also that he was
incompetent legally to mortgage his property which belonged to him. On 10th September
1895 Dharmodas Ghose along with his mother brought an legal action against Brahmo Dutta
by saying that the mortgage that was executed by Dharmodas was commenced when he was a
minor or infant and so such mortgage was void and disproportionate or improper and as a
result of which such contract should be revoked. When this petition or claim was in process,
Brahmo Dutta had died and then further the appeal or petition was litigated by his executor’s.
The plaintiff argued or confronted that in such case no relaxation or any sought of aid should
be provided to them because according to him, defendant had dishonestly misinterpreted the
fact about his age and because if mortgage is cancelled at the request by defendant i.e.
Dharmodas Ghose.

JUDGEMENT:- According to the verdict of Trial court, such mortgage deed or contract
that was commenced between the plaintiff and the defendant was void as it was accomplished
by the person who was an infant at the time of execution of mortgage.When Brahmo Dutta
was not satisfied with the verdict of Trial Court he filed an appeal in the Calcutta High
court.According to the decision of Calcutta High court, they agreed with the verdict that was
given by Trial court and dismissed the appeal of Brahmo Dutta.Then he later went to Privy
Council for the appeal and later the Privy Council also dismissed the appeal of Brahmo Dutta
and held that there cannot be any sought of contract between a minor and a major person.The
final decision that was passed by the council were-Any sought of contract with a minor or
infant is void/void ab- initio (void from beginning).Since minor was incompetent to make
such mortgage hence the contact such made or commenced shall also being void and not
5
(1903) ILR 30 Cal 539 (PC)
valid in the eyes of law.The minor i.e. Dharmodas Gosh cannot be forced to give back the
amount of money that was advanced to him, because he was not bound by the promise that
was executed in a contract.

3. Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors6

FACTS:- In 2014, a three judge bench in Pune Municipal Corporation case held that in case
land owners are not willing to accept the compensation, the same has to be deposited in
Court. Mere deposit of compensation in treasury cannot be regarded as payment as per
Section 24(2). In other words, land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act will lapse.
This view held field for nearly over three years, until a two judges bench comprising Justice
Arun Mishra and Amitava Roy doubted its correctness in the Indore Development Authority
case in December 2017 and referred it to larger bench. The larger bench (a three judge bench)
which considered the reference was also headed by Justice Arun Mishra. This three judge
bench (by 2:1 majority) held the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation to be per incuriam.
While Justices Arun Mishra and A K Goel were in the majority, Justice Mohan M
Shantanagoudar dissented by stating that a three judge bench cannot overrule a precedent laid
down by a co-ordinate bench. Shortly, another three-judge bench (Justices Madan B Lokur,
Kurian Joseph and Deepak Gupta) took objection to this course adopted by Justice Arun
Mishra-led bench in the Indore Development Authority case, and stayed the operation of
Indore Development Authority case. It was only after this that a two-judge bench headed by
Justice Arun Mishra thought it fit to refer the issue to the CJI for determination by a larger
bench.

JUDGEMENT:-
1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case the award is not made as on 1.1.2014
the date of commencement of Act of 2013, there is no lapse of proceedings.
Compensation has to be determined under the provisions of Act of 2013.
2. n case the award has been passed within the window period of five years excluding
the period covered by an interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continue as
provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the Act of 2013 under the Act of 1894 as if it has
not been repealed.
3. The word ‘or’ used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be
read as ‘nor’ or as ‘and’. The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under
Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 takes place where due to inaction of authorities for
five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has
not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other words, in case possession has
been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if
compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse.
4. The expression ‘paid’ in the main part of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not
include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit is
provided in proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to
majority of land holdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of

6
S.L.P. (C) NOS.9036-9038 OF 2016)
 notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 shall be entitled to
compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2013. In case the
obligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 has not been
fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of
compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. In
case of non-deposit with respect to the majority of holdings for five years or more,
compensation under the Act of 2013 has to be paid to the “landowners” as on the date
of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the Act of 1894.
5. In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1)
of the Act of 1894, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under
Section 24(2) due to non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in court. The
obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section 31(1). Land
owners who had refused to accept compensation or who sought reference for higher
compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section
24(2) of the Act of 2013.
6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 is to be treated as part of Section
24(2) not part of Section 24(1)(b).
7. The mode of taking possession under the Act of 1894 and as contemplated under
Section 24(2) is by drawing of inquest report/memorandum. Once award has been
passed on taking possession under Section 16 of the Act of 1894, the land vests in
State there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, as once
possession has been taken there is no lapse under Section 24(2).
8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed lapse of proceedings are
applicable in case authorities have failed due to their inaction to take possession and
pay compensation for five years or more before the Act of 2013 came into force, in a
proceeding for land acquisition pending with concerned authority as on 1.1.2014. The
period of subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in the
computation of five years.
9. Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not give rise to new cause of action to question
the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a
proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the Act of 2013, i.e., 1.1.2014. It
does not revive stale and time-barred claims and does not reopen concluded
proceedings nor allow landowners to question the legality of mode of taking
possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury
instead of court to invalidate acquisition.

CONCLUSION
After analyzing the above-mentioned instances, it becomes clear that for any civilized system
of law it is most important to provide remedies for the unjust enrichment. Such remedies
don’t fall under the jurisdiction of the Contract law and Tort, but within a third category i.e.
Quasi-Contract or Restitution. The aim of the Quasi-Contract seems putting an obligation on
the defendant to make restitution of the benefit which he derives from other, causing him loss
thereby. The Law Commission of India considered these provisions of Contract Act to be
inadequate because it does not mention all the situations or circumstances concerning unjust
enrichment. There are various situations which usually don’t fit into the categories mentioned
in the enactment. So, it is suggested to insert a residuary Section where all the remaining
circumstances can put together arising out of unjust enrichment.

Therefore, the theory of Unjust Enrichment restricts a person from taking advantage from the
loss of another person by making the former liable to restitute him and make good the loss.
Where court is satisfied with the view that one party has enriched himself causing loss to
another party thereby and the beneficiary has not given anything in return, it may order to
person who gains benefit from another’s loss to make compensation or restitute the services
or money. This theory also prohibits a person from taking advantage of position of another
person.

This article serves as an attempt to understand the views of the Indian Courts regarding unjust
enrichment. Generally, it is seen that the court give its verdict in favor of plaintiff. Our law
has always responded to every situation in a very disciplined manner. The law has tried to put
an obligation on the defendant to restitute the things of other which in justice, equity and
good conscience belongs to another person. The Sections from 68 to 72 of Indian Contract
Act provide for the remedies for unjust enrichment which is a basis of restitution. But with
the time things require some alteration or amendments. Section 71 deals with the things
delivered by only mistake and coercion. As there can be many other ways like fraud,
misrepresentation and undue-influence by which things can also be delivered or received. So,
it is suggested that provision relating to fraud, misrepresentation and undue-influence can
also be inserted in the enactment.

REFERENCES
1. https://www.wallcliffslawfirm.com/uploads/newsletter-files/2020091615040389648-
Legal_Angle_-_September_2020_-_Issue_03.pdf
2. https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/tag/doctrine-of-restitution/
3. http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/888/Section-65-of-the-Indian-Contract-
Act,-1872-with-special-reference-to-Discharge-of-a-Contract-by-Frustration.html
4. https://www.latestlaws.com/articles/the-restoration-theory-of-unjust-enrichment/