Award Of Lok Adalat Cannot Be Considered As An Award Of The Court Made Under Part III Of Land Acquisition Act: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that an award of the Lok Adalat, being an executable decree binding between the parties, cannot be considered as an award of the Court under Part III of the Land Acquisition Act for the purposes of sec. 28A providing for re-determination of the amount of compensation of the award.

A division bench comprising of Justice SC Gupte and Justice AA Sayed observed thus:

"There is nothing in this scheme of things for treating an award passed by a Lok Adalat as a deemed decree of that court which made the reference to the Lok Adalat or for which the Lok Adalat was organised. In the context of the LA Act, and particularly for the purposes of Section 28A, the fiction of "decree of a civil court" will not only have to be to be extended to a decree of the court referring the matter to Lok Adalat or for which such Lok Adalat is organised, but such court having passed it under Part III of the LA Act, so as to have consequences for third parties."

Furthermore, it said:

"We are, thus, of the view that the award of the Lok Adalat, through an executable decree binding between the parties to it, does not amount to a determination of the reference court so as to enable other similarly situated landowners to seek re-determination of compensation under Section 28A of the LA Act."

The development came in a plea challenging the order passed by Sub-Divisional Officer on an application under sec. 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 thereby seeking directions for conducting a fresh inquiry.

The question before the Court was that "whether an award passed by a Lok-Adalat can be considered an award of the court under Part III of the Land Acquisition Act for the purposes of Section 28A of that Act?"

The land of petitioners along with other lands was acquired by the State Government for a storage lake. An award was therefore made under sec. 11 of the Act on 26th February 2010. Compensation was duly paid thereof.

However, after sometime, a land acquisition reference was filed before Joint Civil Judge by one of the landholders which was taken before a Lok Adalat. An award was made by the Lok Adalat for payment of enhanced compensation by the State towards acquisition of land of the land-holder. Based on that award, Petitioners had made an application for enhanced compensation under sec. 28A(1).

The Sub-Divisional Officer rejected that application on the ground that the decision reference was restricted to that case alone. The petition was therefore filed in the High Court challenging the aforesaid order.

Looking at the facts of the case and statutory principles of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, the Court observed that determination of a dispute by a Lok Adalat has consequences exclusively for the parties to the dispute. 

"The court, for which such Lok Adalat is organised, is not concerned even at the stage of the reference. The award made by the Lok Adalat does not have to go back to that court to enable it to make it a part of its decree. The award itself is final and binding (and not appealable) as between the parties. It is deemed to be a decree of a civil court and executable as such. There is nothing in this scheme of things for treating an award passed by a Lok Adalat as a deemed decree of that court which made the reference to the Lok Adalat or for which the Lok Adalat was organised." The Court observed.

Relying on the judicial authorities on the subject, the Court observed thus:

"It is difficult to say that the Parliament, in introducing this authority of the Lok Adalat and treating its administrative act as an executable orderunder the signature and seal of the Lok Adalat, meant to lend the status of an award of a reference court so as to kick in the provisions of Section 28A for the benefit of other landholders whose lands were covered by the same acquisition notification."

Dismissing the said petition, the Court found no infirmity with the impugned order of the Sub-Divisional Officer by which he refused to entertain the Petitioner's application under sec. 28A based on the award of Lok Adalat. 

"The award of Lok Adalat in that LAR cannot be construed as an award of the court made under Part III of the LA Act." The Court said.

Title: Smt.Umadevi Rajkumar Jeure & Ors. vs. The District Collector, Solapur & Ors.

Click Here To Read Judgment