1 WP 7916..........2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7916 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7918 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7919 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7922 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7923 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7925 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7927 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7928 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7932 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7933 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7921 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7929 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7930 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7931 OF 2011 WITH 2 WP 7916..........2011 WRIT PETITION NO. 7934 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 petitioners. Mr. K.B.Choudhari, Addl. Govt. Pleader, Mr. P.P.More,Mr. R.P.Phatake, Mr. T.S. Londhe, Mr. S.B.Pulkundwar, Asstt. Govt. Pleaders for State. ............................. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE :11/10/2011 PER COURT : 1. The respondents/claimants had filed Reference U/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act [ For short, ‘ L.A. Act ’ ]. The petitioners and respondents entered into compromise before the ‘ Lok Nyayalaya ’ held on 22/07/2007. The terms of compromise were reduced into writing and the same were signed by the claimants and the representatives of the petitioners. Pursuant to the said terms of compromise executed between the panel of members in the ‘ Lok Nyayalaya ’ , the Award came to be passed on the same day by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division). After a long slumber of four ( 4 ) years, the petitioners have 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 3 WP 7916..........2011 petitioners was not authorized. 2. Mr. Surwase, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the claimants are not entitled for interest U/s 34 of the L.A. Act on the ground that the possession has been taken from the claimants 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 petitioners dated 23/03/2009 suggesting that it is the Executive Engineer who can compromise the matters up to Rs. 1,00,000/- ( Rupees One Lac only ) and up to Rs. 40,00,000/- ( Rupees Forty Lacs only ), the Executive Director of the petitioners 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 petitioners that any fraud has been played by the claimants. The petitioners on their own volition have entered into the terms of compromise. The representatives of the petitioners have signed the terms of compromise consciously. It is not the case that some action has been taken against the representatives, who have signed the 4 WP 7916..........2011 terms of compromise. It is now too late in the day to challenge the said compromise after a long slumber of four ( 4 ) years. The petitioners represented that they have entered into compromise in ‘ Lok Nyayalaya ’. The claimants agreed to the same. The terms were settled and recorded. The petitioners herein do 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 claimants, nor the claimants are guilty of any mis-representation, the said compromise now can not be set aside after a lapse of four ( 4 ) years. The Circular relied by the petitioners 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 Petitions are dismissed. No costs. The petitioners may take necessary precaution in future before entering the terms of compromise. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] KNP/WP 7916..........2011 5 WP 7916..........2011