Award By Lok Adalat Non Executable If It Does Not Contain Signature Of Both Parties To Settlement: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently held that an award passed by the Lok Adalat which does not contain the signatures of both parties to the settlement is not valid in the eyes of law. The Court also held that the signature of the counsels for the parties would not be enough to give validity to the award.

A single bench of Justice Viju Abraham referred to Section 22C (7) of the Legal Services Authorities Act,1987, Regulation 33 of the Kerala State Legal Services Authority Regulation, 1998 and Regulation 17 of the National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalats) Regulations, 2009 to conclude that both the parties must affix their signatures to the award and when the parties are represented by counsels they must also affix their signatures.

The petitioner’s land in this case was acquired for construction of Changanacherry – Kottayam by-pass and an award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. This award was challenged before the Sub Court and an award was passed. In terms of the award a decree was passed and the petitioner filed an execution petition. However, the counsel for the petitioner made an inadvertent mistake where the actual amount due to the petitioner was not claimed, only a lesser amount was claimed. While the execution petition was pending, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat and an award was passed.

Only when the Lok Adalat passed the award was the petitioner made aware of the error in calculation of the amount to be claimed. The petitioner also contended that since the award was not signed by the petitioner, it is not executable.

The petitioner’s case was that an award drawn in accordance with a settlement, is not executable award unless signed by both parties. The award is based on a miscalculation and the respondents are trying to take advantage of their bonafide mistake of the petitioner, it was contended.

The respondent argued that the award was arrived at on account of settlement between the parties. It was also argued that the counsel for the petitioner had affixed his signature in the award. The respondent referred to Regulation 39 of the Regulation 1998 which states that lawyers can appear on behalf of the parties at the Lok Adalat, hence the signature of the counsel would suffice to validate the award, it was argued.

The Court held that without the signature of the petitioner, the award was non executable:

“..it is without any doubt that the impugned award which does not contain the signatures of the petitioners cannot be said to be valid in the eye of law. Yet another reason for this Court to take such a stand is the case of the petitioners that in the calculation of the amount in the execution petition there occurred some bonafide mistake whereby the amount claimed was substantially lower than what they are entitled for. The said mistake has not come to the notice of the petitioners also for the reason that no calculation statement was submitted by the respondents.”

The Court also observed that the State should not take undue advantage of the bonafide error on part of the petitioner’s counsel.

The Court further observed that the signature of the counsel for the parties would not be enough to make the award binding:

“The question to be considered is as to whether affixture of the signature by the lawyer in the award could be binding on the petitioners. I have already referred to the provisions of the Regulations 2009 which specifically mandates that both parties and the members of the Lok Adalat shall affix their signature then only it becomes an award. Regulation 17 further mandates that wherever the parties are represented by counsel they should also be required to sign the settlement or award before the members of the Lok Adalat affix their signature and therefore it is incumbent that both the parties as well as the lawyers should affix their signature. Therefore, signature of the lawyer alone in the award cannot validate the terms of the settlement as per the award. “

Counsel for the Petitioner: Adv. Aysha Abraham and Adv. S Sarath Prasad

Government Pleader: Adv. Bimal K Nath

Case Title: K R Jayaprakash V. State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 301

Click here to read/download judgment