9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 1436 - SC - Indian LawsWhether the Award passed by a Lok Adalat Under Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 can form the basis for redetermination of compensation as contemplated Under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? HELD THAT - The object of the 1987 Act inter alia as can be noticed from the preamble to the Act, also is the organisation of Lok Adalats. It is clear beyond the shadow of any doubt that the jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat Under Section 20 is to facilitate a settlement of disputes between the parties in a case. It has no adjudicatory role. It cannot decide a lis - The scheme of Section 28A of the Act is unmistakably clear from its very opening words. What Section 28A contemplates is a redetermination of compensation under an award passed under Part III. Part III takes in Section 23. Section 23 deals with the matters to be taken into consideration. Various aspects including the market value on the date of the notification Under Section 4(1) are indicated. A plea founded on estoppel arising out of a consent decree or from an Award passed by a Lok Adalat which can perhaps be even likened to a consent decision cannot be the basis for redetermination of the compensation. What Section 28A indeed insists is on decision by a Civil Court as defined in Section 2(l). In other words what is made the only basis for invoking Section 28A of the Act is an adjudication by the Court as defined in the Act. The plea of estoppel which, ordinarily, arises from a consent decree or Award passed by the Lok Adalat which, as already noticed, does not involve any adjudication by a Court, would hardly suffice. The estoppel which is referred to by this Court applies as between the parties to the consent decree. In K.N. Govindan Kutty Menon v. C.D. Shaji 2011 (11) TMI 783 - SUPREME COURT , this Court was concerned with the question as to whether Under Section 21 of the 1987 Act, when a case is referred to the Lok Adalat in a criminal case Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the matter is settled and an award is passed, whether it could be treated as a Decree of a Civil Court and, thus, executable. The Court held There is no restriction on the power of Lok Adalat to pass an award based on the compromise arrived at between the parties in a case referred by a criminal court Under Section 138 of the NI Act, and by virtue of the deeming provision it has to be treated as a decree capable of execution by a civil court. From the aforesaid pronouncement, the principle that can be culled out is that it is the bounden duty of the court to ascertain for what purpose the legal fiction has been created. It is also the duty of the court to imagine the fiction with all real consequences and instances unless prohibited from doing so. That apart, the use of the term deemed has to be read in its context and further, the fullest logical purpose and import are to be understood. It is because in modern legislation, the term deemed has been used for manifold purposes. The object of the legislature has to be kept in mind. Section 28A, undoubtedly, has been introduced by parliament in the year 1984 to bring solace to those land owners or persons having interest in land to claim the just amount due to them even though they have omitted to file application Under Section 18 of the Act seeking enhancement - In Union of India and Anr. v. Hansoli Devi and Ors. 2002 (9) TMI 799 - SUPREME COURT , the Constitution Bench of this Court has held that the right Under Section 28A is available even to the person who has unsuccessfully filed a time barred application Under Section 18, the fact that a land owner has received the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer with or without protest will not take away his right Under Section 28A. An Award passed by the Lok Adalat is not a compromise decree. An Award passed by the Lok Adalat without anything more, is to be treated as a decree inter alia - An Award passed Under Section 19 of the 1987 Act is a product of compromise. Sans compromise, the Lok Adalat loses jurisdiction. The matter goes back to the Court for adjudication. Pursuant to the compromise and the terms being reduced to writing with the approval of the parties it assumes the garb of an Award which in turn is again deemed to be a decree without anything more. We would think that it may not be legislative intention to treat such an award passed Under Section 19 of the 1987 Act to be equivalent to an award of the Court which is defined in the Act as already noted by us and made under Part III of the Act. An award of the Court in Section 28A is also treated as a decree. Such an Award becomes executable. It is also appealable. 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 1987 Act. The impugned judgments stand set aside - Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Award passed by a Lok Adalat under Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 can form the basis for redetermination of compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Basis for Redetermination of Compensation The central question in these cases was whether an Award passed by a Lok Adalat under Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (1987 Act) can be used as a basis for redetermination of compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act). The High Court had previously ruled that such an Award could indeed form the foundation for exercising power under Section 28A of the Act. Background and Procedural History A notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Act on 21.03.1983 for planned industrial development. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed compensation at Rs. 24,033 per bigha on 28.11.1984. Fateh Mohammed sought a reference against this Award, which was then made to a Lok Adalat. The Lok Adalat passed an Award on 12.03.2016, fixing compensation at Rs. 297 per square yard. This led to the Respondents filing applications under Section 28A of the Act, which were rejected by the Additional District Magistrate on the basis that the Award was a compromise. The High Court, however, found that the Award of the Lok Adalat would be deemed a decree of the Civil Court, allowing the Respondents to invoke Section 28A. Arguments by the Appellant The Appellant argued that Section 28A is not applicable when there is no determination by the Court under the Act. The Lok Adalat, constituted under Section 19 of the 1987 Act, has no adjudicatory or judicial function and merely facilitates a compromise. Therefore, an Award by the Lok Adalat cannot be treated as an Award by a Court under the Act. The Appellant cited several judgments, including State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh, to support this argument. Arguments by the Respondents The Respondents contended that the Award by the Lok Adalat, being treated as a decree, should allow them to invoke Section 28A. They emphasized the legislative intent behind Section 28A, which aims to provide just compensation to those who failed to seek enhancement due to ignorance or other disadvantages. They argued that the Lok Adalat's Award should be considered as an order of the Court under Section 18 of the Act. Court's Analysis The Court examined the scheme of the 1987 Act and the Act. It noted that the Lok Adalat's role is to facilitate settlements and compromises, not to adjudicate disputes. The guiding principles for a Lok Adalat under Section 19(4) of the 1987 Act include justice, equity, and fair play, which are not entirely aligned with the adjudicatory principles under Section 23 of the Act. The Court highlighted that Section 28A of the Act requires a redetermination of compensation based on an Award passed under Part III of the Act, which involves adjudication by the Court. The Lok Adalat's Award, being a result of a compromise, does not meet this requirement. The Court also emphasized that the definition of "Court" under the Act refers to a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, which is distinct from a Lok Adalat. Divergence in Judicial Opinions The Court acknowledged the divergence in judicial opinions among various High Courts. It noted that while some High Courts had accepted the Lok Adalat's Award as a basis for Section 28A applications, others had rejected this view. The Court found merit in the latter view, which aligns with the statutory scheme and legislative intent. Conclusion and Judgment The Court concluded that an Award passed by the Lok Adalat under Section 20 of the 1987 Act cannot be the basis for invoking Section 28A of the Act. The impugned judgments of the High Court were set aside, and the appeals were allowed. The Court declared that an application under Section 28A of the Act cannot be maintained on the basis of an Award passed by the Lok Adalat. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.
|
