9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Challenge to order passed by Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing Letters Patent Appeal, interpretation of Section 8(i)(b) of the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Properties Act, 1952, validity of Lok Adalat's order for appointment of arbitrator, applicability of National Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
Interpretation of Section 8(i)(b) of the Act: - A writ petition sought appointment of an arbitrator u/s 8(i)(b) of the Act for land acquisition. - Lok Adalat initially ordered appointment of arbitrator, later recalled the order, and referred the matter to High Court. - High Court affirmed Single Judge's order for arbitrator appointment based on Lok Adalat's discussions and terms of settlement. - Appellant argued High Court's view was untenable, citing precedent on arbitrator appointment. Validity of Lok Adalat's Order: - Lok Adalat's authority to dispose of cases is governed by Section 20 of the Legal Services Act. - Section 20 allows Lok Adalat to arrive at a compromise or settlement between parties. - Terms "compromise" and "settlement" crucial in determining Lok Adalat's jurisdiction. - A compromise involves mutual concessions, while settlement is termination of legal proceedings by mutual consent. - Case lacked compromise or settlement, making Lok Adalat's order for arbitrator appointment invalid. Applicability of Legal Precedents: - High Court failed to consider precedent in State of Punjab v. Shri Ganpat Raj regarding Lok Adalat's jurisdiction. - Matter remitted to High Court for fresh hearing, with a directive to consider the Munsha case judgment. - High Court instructed to dispose of the matter within four months, without expressing any opinion on case merits. Conclusion: - Appeal allowed without costs, emphasizing the need for High Court to reexamine the writ petition in light of relevant legal principles and judgments.
|
