Award Passed By A Lok Adalat Is Not A Compromise Decree: New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) Vs Yunus

DATE OF JUDGMENT:
3rd February 2022

JUDGES:
Justice K. M. Joseph
Justice P. Sri Narasimha

PARTIES:
Appellant/Petitioner: New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA)
Respondent: Yunus and Ors.

SUBJECT

In the present case, an appeal was filed in the Supreme Court of India against the order of the High Court which held that the Award passed by the Lok Adalat can form the foundation for exercising power under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act.

OVERVIEW

1. The facts of the matter are such that a notification was issued on 21.03.1983 under section 4(1) of the land acquisition act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the act) w.r.t to villages of Teshsil Dadri (situated in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh) for planned industrial development to be carried out by the appellant.
2. The Land Acquisition Officer by the award dated 28.11.1984 fixed the compensation at Rs. 20 per square yard for land belonging to the respondents. The respondents didn’t seek enhancement of the award under section 18 of the Act but one Fateh Mohammed filed a reference against the said award to a Lok Adalat.
3. The Lok Adalat, by the award dated 12.03.2016 referred to the order of the High Court w.r.t to multiple appeals against the award of Land Acquisition Officer dated 28.11.1984 where the High Court directed the concerned Authorities to determine the compensation at the rate of Rs.297.50 per sq. yard instead of 20 sq. yard. The said order was reaffirmed by the parties by executing a Settlement/Compromise Agreement Paper No. 60Ka1. The Lok Adalat decided the matter in accordance with the order of the High Court and the settlement agreement.
4. This led to respondents filing applications before Additional District Magistrate seeking a redetermination of the award of Lok Adalat under Section 28A of the Act. However, the said applications were rejected for the reason that the award of Lok Adalat was based on a compromise. The Respondents then filed writ petitions in the High Court, where the Court declared that award of the Lok Adalat would be deemed to be a decree of the Civil Court and the respondents would be entitled to invoke Section 28A of the Act. Therefore, the appellants filed this appeal in the Supreme Court.
5. The learned counsel of the appellants argued that the Lok Adalat doesn’t fall under the meaning of Court envisioned under the land acquisition act as the Lok Adalats are constituted under section 19 of the Legal Authorities Act, 1987 to reach out a compromise and therefore have no adjudication function. Hence, the award passed by the Lok Adalat can’t be considered as a decree for the purpose of Section 28A of the land acquisition act.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that it would be unfair to discard the award of the Lok Adalat which is based on the decision of the High Court. The Counsel for the respondents further argued that Section 21 of the legal service authorities act, 1987 provide that “Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court”, hence Section 21 is wide enough to embrace within its scope the Award of a Lok Adalat as an order of the Court under Section 18 of the Act.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987

• Section 19- Organisation of Lok Adalats.
• Section 20- Cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats.
• Section 21- Award of Lok Adalat.

Land acquisition act 1984

Section 28A- Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court.

ISSUES

1. Whether the award of the Lok Adalat can be treated as a decree?

JUDGMENT

1. Explaining the object of the 1987 act, the Court noted the jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat under Section 20 is to facilitate a settlement of disputes between the parties in a Case and bring about a genuine compromise.
2. The Court then referred to the judgment in the case of K.N. Govindan Kutty Menon v. C.D. Shaji where it was held that under Section 21 of the act every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court and as such it is executable by that court.
3. However, the Court in the present case noted that under Section 21 of 1987 by which the Award is treated as if it were a decree is intended only to clothe the Award with enforceability. The purport of the lawgiver is only to confer it with enforceability in like manner as if it were a decree.
4. The Court further noticed that the word ‘Court’ under the land acquisition act means Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction unless the appropriate Government has appointed a Special Judicial Officer to perform judicial functions of the court under this Act.
5. The court, therefore, concluded that an award passed by the Lok Adalat is not a compromise decree (the acceptance by the Court of something to which the parties agreed) in accordance with the principles laid down in the case of P.T. Thomas v. Thomas Job. Therefore, an application under Section 28A of the Act cannot be maintained on the basis of an award passed by the Lok Adalat under Section 20 of the 1987 Act.

CONCLUSION

Lok Adalat is one of the alternative dispute redressal mechanisms, it is a forum where disputes/cases pending in the court of law or at the pre-litigation stage are settled/ compromised amicably. The Court in the present case interpreted the jurisdiction of the Lok Adalats to mean that an application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be maintained based on an award passed by the Lok Adalat under Section 20 of the Legal Services Authority Act 1987.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement