Mahmood & others vs State of Uttarakhand & others

MANOJ K. TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

Petitioners’ Bhumidari land situate in Village Nagla Imarti, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar was acquired by respondent No. 2 -National

Highways Authority of India, for widening National Highway No. 58.

The Competent Authority of Land Acquisition (in short “CALAâ€) determined the amount of compensation payable to the petitioners’,

under Section 3(G)(1) of The National Highways Act, 1956, which was accepted by the petitioners under protest. Since petitioners were dissatisfied

with the amount of compensation, therefore, at their instance, the matter was referred for arbitration to the Collector, Haridwar. Since petitioners

were not satisfied even with the compensation, determined by the Collector, Haridwar in his award, therefore, they moved applications under Section

34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, for setting aside the arbitral award, to learned District Judge, Haridwar.

Before learned District Judge, petitioners entered into compromise with the authorities of concerned agencies and their applications, under Section

34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, were disposed of by learned District Judge, Haridwar, in terms of the compromise.

In these petitions, petitioners have challenged the orders passed by learned District Judge, Haridwar (on 21.07.2016, 04.10.2016 and 16.08.2016),

whereby petitioners’ applications, under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, were decided in terms of compromise.

It is the contention of the petitioners that the compromise deed was fraudulently obtained from them, inasmuch as the rate at which, compensation

was payable, was not mentioned in the compromise deed at the time, when petitioners had put their signatures thereupon. Learned counsel for the

petitioners submits that as per the understanding arrived at between petitioners and respondents, petitioners had agreed to accept compensation @

Rs.15,000/- per sq. meter, however, in the compromise deed, the compensation payable was written as Rs.829/- per sq. feet.

I am afraid that such a contention against a compromise decree cannot be accepted in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution. Although

provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable to proceedings under Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 in view of Section 19 thereof,

however, the principles of Code of Civil Procedure can still be looked for guidance. There is a specific provision in Section 96(3) of C.P.C., which

bars appeal against a decree, passed with the consent of parties.

In such view of the matter, there is no scope of interference with the order(s) impugned in the writ petitions. However, this order will not preclude

the petitioners from seeking their remedy elsewhere, including by way of filing a review application before court concerned.

With the aforesaid observation, writ petitions are dismissed. No order as cost.