Case BriefsHigh Courts

Uttaranchal High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Manoj K. Tiwari, J., dismissed a bunch of writ petitions filed against the order of the District Judge whereby petitioners’ applications under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 were decided in terms of compromise between the parties.

Bhumidari land of the petitioners was acquired by Respondent 2 – National Highway Authority of India, for widening National Highway 58. The amount of compensation decided by the Competent Authority of Land Acquisition under Section 3(G)(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 was accepted by the petitioners under protest. The matter was referred to the Collector for arbitration who gave his award. Against the award of the Collector, the petitioners filed applications under Section 34. Before the District Judge, petitioners entered into a compromise with the respondent. The petitioners, in the instant petitions, challenged the order passed by the District Judge contending that the compromise decree was fraudulently obtained from them.

The High Court held that such a contention could not be accepted in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution. It was observed that although provisions of CPC does not apply to the A&C Act, however, in view of Section 19 thereof, principles of CPC can be looked for guidance. It was further observed that Section 96(3) CPC bars an appeal against a decree passed with the consent of parties. In such view of the matter, the Court held that there was no scope of interference with the order impugned. The petitions were accordingly dismissed. [Mahmood v. State of Uttarakhand, 2018 SCC OnLine Utt 721, dated 02-08-2018]