1 W.P.No.7099/11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7099 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Mr.B.R.Surwase, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.B.Pulkundwar, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for State. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 12.10.2011. PER COURT : 1. 1. The respondent No.3/claimant had filed Reference U/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act [ For short, ‘ L.A. Act ’ ]. The petitioner and respondents entered into compromise before the ‘ Lok Nyayalaya ’ held on 19.11.2006. The terms of compromise were reduced into writing and the same were signed by the claimant and the representative of the petitioner. Pursuant to the said terms of compromise executed between the panel of members in the ‘ Lok Nyayalaya ’ , the Award came to be 2 W.P.No.7099/11 passed on the same day by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division). After a long slumber of five ( 5 ) years, the petitioner has assailed the said Award on two ( 2 ) counts ( i ) the petitioner is not liable to pay interest U/s 34 of the L.A. Act and ( ii ) a person who signed the compromise on behalf of the petitioner was not authorized. 2. Mr. Surwase, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claimant is not entitled for interest U/s 34 of the L.A. Act on the ground that the possession has been taken from the claimant prior to notification U/s 4 of the L.A. Act and as such they are only entitled for rental compensation and not for the interest U/s 34 of the L.A. Act. The learned counsel further contends that the person who signed the compromise, pursuant to which the Award was passed, was not authorized and competent. The learned counsel relies on the Circular issued by the petitioner dated 23/03/2009 suggesting that it is the Executive Engineer who can compromise the matters up to Rs. 1,00,000/- 3 W.P.No.7099/11 ( Rupees One Lac only ) and up to Rs. 40,00,000/- ( Rupees Forty Lacs only ), the Executive Director of the petitioner is only competent to enter into the compromise. According to the learned counsel, the said terms of compromise deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. The compromise Award passed in ‘ Lok Nyayalaya ’ can not be challenged by way of Appeal. It is not the case of the petitioner that any fraud has been played by the claimant. The petitioner on its own volition has entered into the terms of compromise. The representative of the petitioner has signed the terms of compromise consciously. It is not the case that some action has been taken against the representative, who has signed the terms of compromise. It is now too late in the day to challenge the said compromise after a long slumber of five ( 5 ) years. The petitioners represented that they have entered into compromise in ‘ Lok Nyayalaya ’. The claimant agreed to the same. The terms were settled and recorded. The petitioner does 4 W.P.No.7099/11 not have any objection about the amount settled in compromise. The only objection is to the interest U/s 34 of the L.A. Act. The compromise could not be challenged in part. 4. In view of the fact that no fraud has been played or committed by the claimant, nor the claimant is guilty of any mis-representation, the said compromise now can not be set aside after a lapse of five ( 5 ) years. The Circular relied by the petitioner dated 23/03/1992 would be inapplicable in the present case as the same is later in the point of time. The compromise is of the year 2007. 5. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. The petitioner may take necessary precaution in future before entering the terms of compromise. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.12.10.2011. asp/office/wp7099.11 5 W.P.No.7099/11