The main legal point established in the judgment is that delay in filing appeals under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 may not be condoned if not sufficiently justified, as per the law laid down in previous judgments.

JUDGMENT :

1. These appeals have been filed under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging the orders passed by learned District Judge, Haridwar. By the impugned orders, objection filed by appellants under Section 34 of the said Act were decided, in terms of settlement entered into between the parties. There is considerable delay in filing these appeals and condonation of delay has been sought in all the appeals. The extent of delay in these appeals, as per office report, is as under :-

2. Since the explanation for delay given in the delay condonation applications filed in all these appeals is the same, therefore, the applications filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act in these appeals are heard and decided together. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of A.O. No. 09 of 2022 alone are being considered, in which there is least delay of 551 days.

3. In this appeal, challenge is to final order dated 14.09.2018 passed by learned District Judge, Haridwar in Misc. Application No. 40 of 2012. By the said order, appellants’ objection under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was decided, based on a compromise between the parties.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that appellants were entitled to solatium and interest, in terms of judgment rendered in the case of Union of India and another v. Tarsem Singh and others, reported in (2019) 9 SCC 304, in which Hon’ble Supreme Court declared that provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, relating to solatium and interest contained under Section 23(1A) and (2) and interest payable in terms of section 28 proviso, will apply to acquisitions made under the National Highways Act. Thus, according to him, learned District Judge erred in not granting solatium and interest to the appellants.

5. Perusal of the record reveals that Competent Authority, Land Acquisition, vide order dated 04.12.2010 had made a determination that appellant is entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.558/- per square meter. The Arbitrator enhanced rate of compensation to Rs.980.97/- per square meter.

6. Before learned District Judge in proceedings under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, an application was made on behalf of appellants that they have entered into a settlement with opposite party pursuant to which they are ready to accept compensation at the rate of Rs.1,450/- per square meter, which will be in addition to other benefits mentioned in the compromise deed.

7. In his deposition before learned District Judge, appellant no. 1 stated that appellants have arrived at a settlement with National Highways Authority of India, therefore, their objection under Section 34 of the aforesaid Act can be decided in terms of the settlement. Accordingly, learned District Judge decided the objection filed by appellants, in terms of settlement, vide order dated 14.09.2018.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellants had given their acceptance for higher rate of compensation, but their signatures/thumb impressions were fraudulently obtained by mentioning much less amount in the compromise deed. Thus, according to him, the order passed by learned District Judge deserves to be set-aside, as it is based on a compromise, which was fraudulently obtained from the appellants. He further submits that appellants are entitled to solatium and interest, which has been denied to them. He further submits that appellants’ claim was alive on 28.03.2008, which is the cut-off date indicated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the