Parties to a consent award cannot assail the same, and an appeal would not lie against a consent award.

JUDGMENT :

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

Since both these appeals arise out of the same award as passed by the learned District Judge, Solan, H.P., on 5.6.2009 in L. Ref. No. 3-S/4 of 2008/2004, the same were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Government of Himachal Pradesh issued a notification dated 26.12.1990 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for acquisition of 591 bighas of land in villages Bated, Suli, Khata, Dwaroo, Rauri and Pachhyour, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, for establishment of cement factory by M/s Ambuja Cements Ltd., formerly known as Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the “beneficiary company”). The proclamation of this notification was made in the related villages on 5.1.1991 and it was also published in newspaper on 6.1.1991 and 8.1.1991 respectively.

3. It is the case of the beneficiary company that the Land Acquisition Collector, Arki, after holding an enquiry as per provisions of the Act, announced a consent award No. 1/91 for 448-14 bighas of land on 18.5.1992 and provided compensation @ Rs. 62,000/- per bigha (inclusive of solatium and interest) for cultivated land and Rs. 19,000/- per bigha (inclusive of solatium and interest) for un-cultivated land. It is claimed that the land of the appellants in RFA No. 287/2009 (hereinafter referred to as the “claimants”) was also acquired under the aforesaid award, however, despite that, the claimants disputed the award and filed a reference petition, which was decided by the learned District Judge, Solan on 31.10.1998 by returning the reference to the Land Acquisition Collector, Arki, to adjudicate as to whether the claimants were consenting parties or not.

4. The Land Acquisition Collector, Arki, after holding an enquiry found the claimants to be consenting parties and accordingly, rejected the prayer for making a reference to the Court vide order dated 30.6.1999. The claimants then filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the orders passed by the learned District Judge, Solan and the Land Acquisition Collector, Arki, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 27.12.2006 by quashing both the orders and the learned District Judge, Solan, was directed to decide the reference in accordance with law. However, it was made clear that while disposing of the petition, this Court had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions of the parties. The learned District Judge, Solan, passed his award on 5.6.2009 by enhancing the compensation to Rs.66,666/- per Bigha in favour of the claimants irrespective of the nature of the land and in addition thereto, the claimants had been held entitled to all statutory benefits like solatium, additional compulsory charges under Section 23(1-A) of the Act and the interest etc.

5. As noted above, the claimants assailed the award being inadequate and have claimed a sum of Rs.12,25,000/- towards enhanced compensation along with statutory benefits and on the other hand, the beneficiary company also assailed the award on various grounds including non-maintainability of the appeal against the consent award.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully.

7. At the outset, it may be observed that the proposition that the claimants would not be entitled to seek reference to the civil court against a consent award is no longer res integra as would be evident from various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, some of which are being referred to below.

8. In State of Gujarat and others vs. Daya Shamji Bhai and others, (1995) 5 SCC 746, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that once the claimants agreed to accept the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer and 25% more in addition thereto and also agreed to forego their right to seek reference, then the contract is conclusive and