1 WP 4317.............2011 - [ J ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4317 OF 2011 Subhash Vinayak Dange Age : 50 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Shivrai, Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. : Aurangabad. .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra Through the S.L.A.O. Jaikwadi Project No. II, Collector Office, Aurangabad. 2. The Executive Engineer (Irrigation), Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. N.J.Pahune Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.B.Pulkundwar, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. U.B. Bondar, Advocate for Resp. No. 2. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4319 OF 2011 Rangnath Manaji Admane Age : 70 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Shivrai, Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. : Aurangabad. .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 2 WP 4317.............2011 - [ J ] 1. The State of Maharashtra Through the S.L.A.O. Jaikwadi Project No. II, Collector Office, Aurangabad. 2. The Executive Engineer (Irrigation), Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. N.J.Pahune Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.B.Pulkundwar, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. U.B. Bondar, Advocate for Resp. No. 2. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4325 OF 2011 1. Anna Kisan Jadhav Age : 38 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Shivrai, Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. : Aurangabad. 2. Sahebrao Kisan Jadhav Age : 45 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Shivrai, Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. : Aurangabad. 3. Shakuntalabai Kashinath Aher Age : 30 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Shivrai, Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. : Aurangabad. .... PETITIONERS V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra 3 WP 4317.............2011 - [ J ] Through the S.L.A.O. Jaikwadi Project No. II, Collector Office, Aurangabad. 2. The Executive Engineer (Irrigation), Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. N.J.Pahune Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.B.Pulkundwar, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. U.B. Bondar, Advocate for Resp. No. 2. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 13/07/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. The petitioners have filed References U/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act [ For short, ‘ said Act ’ ]. During the pendency of the References, settlement was arrived at before the ‘ Lok Adalat ’. The terms of settlement were executed and the panel of the ‘ Lok Adalat ’ accepted the said settlement and directed to draw the Award and the Award was drawn 4 WP 4317.............2011 - [ J ] in terms of the said settlement. The said Award pursuant to the settlement in the ‘ Lok Adalat ’ was not challenged by any of the parties. The acquiring body deposited the amount with the Reference Court as per the settlement. The petitioners applied for withdrawal of the said amount, but the present respondents took objection. The Reference Court thereafter decided the objection and ordered that the claimants shall submit the calculations of receivable amount claiming interest from the date of Award U/s 34 of the said Act. The petitioners being aggrieved thereby, have filed the present Writ Petitions. 4. Mr. Pahune Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the settlement is arrived at in consensus with all the parties. The respondents had agreed to pay interest U/s 34 of the said Act @ 9 % for the first year of taking the possession and @ 15 % for subsequent period till the date of payment of compensation. While entering into the settlement, the claimants have also agreed to accept the lesser amount of compensation. The learned counsel further contends that the settlement would be binding on all the parties and the Award which is passed, will have to be executed on the same terms and the executing Court does not have the jurisdiction to go behind the same. The learned counsel further contends that the claimants are entitled for interest @ 12 % till the date of actual payment as 5 WP 4317.............2011 - [ J ] per Clause 7 of the settlement. 5. Mr. Bondar, the learned counsel for the acquiring body and the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader supports the order passed and submit that the settlement can not be beyond the legal position. If the possession is taken prior to notification U/s 4 of the said Act, then the said possession is dehors the provisions of the said Act and interest U/s 34 of the said Act would not be payable from the date of possession but will only be payable after the Award is passed. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the Court has properly passed the order and the same need not be interfered with. 6. Settlement/compromise Award is a contract between the parties super-imposed with the seal of the Court. The respondents have not challenged the Award passed pursuant to the settlement in the ‘ Lok Adalat. ’The parties will be bound by the terms of the Award. The executing Court does not have any jurisdiction to go behind the Award which is passed. The Award will have to be implemented in the manner in which it has been passed, as while arriving at the settlement, even the petitioners may have agreed to receive the compensation at lesser rate. When the parties have specifically agreed to the terms of settlement, they would not be permitted 6 WP 4317.............2011 - [ J ] to resile from the said terms. 7. Even the acquiring body has deposited the amount as per the settlement and the Award passed thereto. The executing Court should not have entertained the objection and could not have directed the payment of interest to the petitioners from the date of Award and not from the date of delivery of possession. That would tantamount to re-writing terms of settlement, which is not permissible. 8. In the result, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause ‘ B ’ and ‘ C ’. The petitioners would be entitled for interest as per clause 7 of the settlement till the date of deposit of the amount in the Court. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 4317......2011 - [ J ]