2021 (6) TMI 1171 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking 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.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. 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.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: 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.

Background:
The petition challenges the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) rejecting the Petitioners' application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act). The Petitioners sought re-determination of compensation based on an award passed by a Lok Adalat in a related land acquisition case.

Legal Question:
The primary legal question is whether an award passed by a Lok Adalat can be considered "an award of the court" under Part III of the LA Act for the purposes of Section 28A.

Section 28A of the LA Act:
Section 28A allows for re-determination of compensation for landholders whose lands are covered by the same notification if a court awards higher compensation to any other landholder. The section specifies that the award must be made under Part III of the LA Act by a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction.

Arguments:
- Petitioners' Argument: The Petitioners argued that the Lok Adalat's award should be deemed a decree of a civil court under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (LSA Act), thereby enabling them to invoke Section 28A.
- Respondents' Argument: The Respondents contended that the legal fiction created by Section 21 of the LSA Act should not be extended beyond making the award enforceable as a decree of a civil court. They argued that such an award does not equate to an award by a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction under Part III of the LA Act.

Court's Analysis:
1. Definition of 'Court': Section 3(d) of the LA Act defines 'court' as a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction unless a special judicial officer is appointed by the government. This definition is restrictive and does not include Lok Adalats.

2. Purpose of Section 21 of the LSA Act: The court noted that the purpose of Section 21 is to make the award of a Lok Adalat enforceable as a decree of a civil court and final and binding on the parties, not to extend its status to an award under Part III of the LA Act.

3. Legal Fiction: The court emphasized that legal fictions must not be extended beyond their statutory purpose. The fiction created by Section 21 of the LSA Act is intended to facilitate enforcement and finality, not to transform the award into an award by a principal Civil Court under Part III of the LA Act.

4. Supreme Court Precedents: The court referred to Supreme Court rulings, including Jose Antonio Cruz Dos R. Rodriguese vs. Land Acquisition Collector and State of WB. vs. Sadan K. Bormal, to support the position that legal fictions should be limited to their intended purpose.

5. Distinction from Other High Court Judgments: The court distinguished its view from contrary judgments by the Karnataka, Gujarat, and Allahabad High Courts, which had extended the legal fiction of Section 21 to include awards under Section 28A of the LA Act.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the award of a Lok Adalat, while enforceable as a decree of a civil court, does not amount to an award by a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction under Part III of the LA Act. Therefore, it cannot be used to invoke Section 28A for re-determination of compensation.

Judgment:
The writ petition was dismissed, and the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer was upheld, affirming that the award of the Lok Adalat in LAR No. 18 of 2011 cannot be construed as an award of the court under Part III of the LA Act.