Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2021 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 1171 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTSeeking directions for conducting a fresh inquiry under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - 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? - HELD THAT:- The referring court or the court for which such Lok Adalat is organised does not come into the picture so far as such determination is concerned. In fact, in the case of a reference under clause (ii) of Section 19(5) of the LSA Act, it is the authority or committee organising the Lok Adalat, which itself refers the case or matter to the Lok Adalat. 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. There is nothing to suggest that if the award is in a compensation dispute in a land acquisition matter, any third party should thereby be entitled to apply for re-determination of its compensation under Section 28A of the LA Act. As a matter of principle, it is not possible to say that that eventuality (i.e. entitlement of a third party to apply for re-determination of its own compensation after passing of the award by the Lok Adalat) inevitably follows as a corollary or consequence from such award. The award of Lok Adalat having to be treated as an award of the reference court under Part III, does not follow as an inevitable sequitur, to come to such consequence the legal fiction contained in Section 21 of the LSA Act will have to be actually extended to import two other fictions, namely, that the award of Lok Adalat should be deemed (i) "a decree of the court which has referred the matter to the Lok Adalat", and (ii) "a decree passed under Part III of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894" - It would be an artificial extension of the legal fiction and not a necessary corollary of the original statutory fiction; it would be extending the original fiction beyond its statutory purpose. Karnataka High Court in Vasudave [2007 (8) TMI 825 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] has, relying on the provisions of the LA Act, CPC and LSA Act, and in particular, the amendment to the CPC by introduction of Section 89, held that the award of a Lok Adalat made on a reference brought before it falls within the expression 'award of the court' under Section 28A of the LA Act. So also, Gujarat High Court in ALL GUJARAT JAHER BHANDHKAM MAJOOR MANDAL VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT [2014 (12) TMI 1427 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] has taken a view that as per Section 21 of the LSA Act, not only is an award in a land acquisition matter made by Lok Adalat a decree of a Civil Court but an executable award of the Reference Court and could be relied on for the purpose of Section 28A of the LA Act. The case of RAMBHAU MAHADEORAO TEMBHURKAR AND ORS VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS [2015 (8) TMI 1578 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] cited by Mr. Tajane is on an altogether different point. It holds, on a principle of equality before law, that it was impermissible to accord different treatments to owners of similar lands based on two different acquisition statutes (namely, the LA Act and the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, in that case). Relying inter alia on the statement of law in Girnar Traders (3) vs. State of Maharashtra [2011 (1) TMI 1343 - SUPREME COURT], the Division Bench of court in that case held that the provisions of Section 28A of the LA Act would apply to acquisitions under the MID Act. The ratio of this judgment has no application to the facts of present case. There are no infirmity with the impugned order of the Sub-Divisional Officer by which he refused to entertain the Petitioner's application under Section 28A of the LA Act based on the award of Lok Adalat in LAR No. 18 of 2011. 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 - petition dismissed.
|