2017 (5) TMI 1823 - HC - Indian Laws

Entitlement to claim re-determination of the amount of compensation paid for land acquired from his possession under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 on the basis of an award passed by a Lok Adalat - HELD THAT - The scope and effect of the deeming provision under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act has been considered by the Apex Court in a number of decisions. In the decision reported in Thomas v. Thomas Job 2003 (8) TMI 592 - KERALA HIGH COURT the Apex Court had to consider whether an award passed by a Lok Adalat could be treated as a decree of a court. The case involved the dispute between two brothers with respect to partition of the properties left behind by their late father. There was a theatre in one of the properties a portion of which was located in the property allotted to one of the brothers. He filed a suit seeking mandatory injunction for removal of the theatre portion. Recovery of possession was also prayed for. The suit was decreed as prayed for. When the matter was pending in appeal the dispute was referred to the Lok Adalat and was settled upon one of the brothers agreeing to sell the property to the other for consideration. When the settlement was not honoured he initiated execution proceedings and sought to compel the other brother to execute a sale deed as agreed. The question has been again considered by the Apex Court in Govindan Kutty Menon K.N. v. C.D. Shaji 2011 (11) TMI 783 - SUPREME COURT . The said case involved proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. During the pendency of criminal proceedings before the Judicial First Class Magistrate s Court the parties appeared before the Lok Adalat and the matter was settled upon payment of an amount that was agreed to. The amount was to be paid in instalments. Upon default in payment of the instalments an Execution Petition was filed before the Munsiff s Court Ernakulam for enforcement of the award. The Execution Court held that an award passed by a Lok Adalat on reference from the Magistrate s Court cannot be construed as a decree executable by the Civil Court. The impugned orders are quashed. The second respondent Special Tahsildar is directed to consider the applications submitted by the petitioners in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six weeks of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to re-determination of compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 based on an award by a Lok Adalat.
2. Applicability of Section 28A to awards passed by Lok Adalats.
3. Interpretation of "award of the Court" under Section 28A.
4. Legal status and enforceability of Lok Adalat awards.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Re-determination of Compensation under Section 28A Based on Lok Adalat Award:
The primary issue was whether a claimant can seek re-determination of compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, based on an award from a Lok Adalat. The petitioners argued that since the Lok Adalat's award is deemed a decree of a civil court, it should serve as a basis for re-determination of compensation. The court examined the provisions of Section 28A, which allows re-determination if a court awards compensation exceeding that awarded by the Collector. The petitioners had submitted their applications within the statutory period, satisfying Section 28A's requirements.

2. Applicability of Section 28A to Awards Passed by Lok Adalats:
The respondents contended that Section 28A applies only to court judgments, not to Lok Adalat awards, which are based on mutual agreements. They argued that Lok Adalat awards are deemed decrees only for execution purposes, not for compensation re-determination. However, the court analyzed Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, which states that Lok Adalat awards are deemed decrees of civil courts and are final and binding. This interpretation aligns with the objective of Section 28A, ensuring fair compensation for all landowners, regardless of whether they sought court references under Section 18.

3. Interpretation of "Award of the Court" Under Section 28A:
The court explored whether an award by a Lok Adalat qualifies as an "award of the court" under Section 28A. It referred to the Legal Services Authorities Act, which defines "court" broadly, including civil, criminal, and revenue courts, tribunals, and other authorities with judicial or quasi-judicial functions. Section 22 of the Act grants Lok Adalats the same powers as civil courts, reinforcing that their awards are equivalent to court decrees. The Supreme Court's rulings in Thomas v. Thomas Job and Govindan Kutty Menon v. C.D. Shaji affirmed that Lok Adalat awards are decrees of civil courts, executable as such.

4. Legal Status and Enforceability of Lok Adalat Awards:
The court emphasized that Lok Adalat awards, once issued, are final, binding, and enforceable as civil court decrees. The Supreme Court's judgments clarified that awards from Lok Adalats, even in criminal cases, are treated as civil court decrees. This interpretation supports the petitioners' claim for re-determination of compensation based on the Lok Adalat award. The court concluded that denying re-determination would result in arbitrary and unequal compensation for similar lands, which is unsustainable.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the impugned orders and directing the Special Tahsildar to reconsider the petitioners' applications for re-determination of compensation based on the Lok Adalat award. The judgment underscores the legal equivalence of Lok Adalat awards to civil court decrees, ensuring fair compensation for all affected landowners.