Karnataka High Court
Somappa S/O Shivabasappa Melligeri vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 8 August, 2017
Author: G.Narendar
Bench: G. Narendar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. NARENDAR
WRIT PETITION NO.105566/2016 (LA-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 112480/2015, WRIT PETITION NO.
112802/2015, WRIT PETITION NO.105562/2016,
WRIT PETITION NO.105563/2016, WRIT PETITION
NO.105564/2016, WRIT PETITION NO.105565/2016 &
WRIT PETITION NO.105570/2016
IN W.P.No.105566/2016:
BETWEEN
SOMAPPA S/O SHIVABASAPPA MELLIGERI,
AGE: 85 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O MELLIGERI PETROL PUMP,
BAGALKOT-587101.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. LINGRAJ MARADI, ADV.)
AND
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BAGALKOT,
DIST. BAGALKOT-587103.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI A. G. SHIVANNA, AAG;
SMT. VIDYAVATHI K., AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE
ANNEXURE-B DATED 05.04.2007 PASSED BY THE
DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY BAGALKOT
(LOK-ADALATH) IN LAC NO.34/2002, ETC.
2
IN W.P.NO.112480/2015
BETWEEN
CHANNAMALLAPPA BASAPPA BENAL
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O BODANAYAKDINNI VILLAGE,
TQ. & DIST. BAGALKOT. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI LINGRAJ MARADI, ADV.)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BAGALKOT.
2. THE ADDL. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
U.K.P.NO.1, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT.
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
KBJNL, ALAMATTI,
DIST. BAGALKOT. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI A. G. SHIVANNA, AAG;
AND SMT. VIDYAVATHI K., AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI R. M. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE
ANNEXURE-D DATED 22.03.2014 PASSED BY THE
DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY BAGALKOT
(LOK-ADALATH, BAGALKOT) IN LAC NO.77/2013, ETC.
IN W.P.NO.112802/2015
BETWEEN
1. PREMABAI W/O NARAYANRAO DESAI
AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O SIMIKERI, TQ. DIST. BAGALKOT.
2. ANILKUMAR S/O NARAYANRAO DESAI
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
3
R/O SIMIKERI, TQ. DIST. BAGALKOT.
3. GURURAJ YANE SUSHILENDRA S/O
NARAYANRAO DESAI
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: PVT. JOB,
SINCE DEAD THROUGH HIS LR'S
3A. SUMA W/O GURURAJ YANE SUHILENDRA DESAI
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O SIMIKERI, TQ. DIST. BAGALKOT.
3B. SRUSTI D/O GURURAJ YANE
SKUSHILENDRA DESAI
AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O SIMIKERI, TQ. DIST. BAGALKOT.
3C. SUSMA D/O GURURAJ YANE
SUSHILENDRA DESAI
AGE: 11 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O SIMIKERI, TQ. DIST. BAGALKOT.
SINCE 3B, 3C ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR
NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER I.E. 3A. SUMA
W/O GURURAJ YANE SUSHILENDRA DESAI.
4. SUREKHA D/O NARAYANRAO DESAI
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O SIMIKERI, TQ. DIST. BAGALKOT.
PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PRASHANT V. MOGAL, ADV.)
AND
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
UKP BAGALKOT, DIST. BAGALKOT.
2. DR. C. NAGAIAH
SPECIAL D. C AND GROUP MANAGER,
LAQ AND R & R, UKP BAGALKOT.
3. SRI. V. P. GUDI,
ADVOCATE, BAGALKOT,
DIST. BAGALKOT. ... RESPONDENTS
4
(BY SRI A. G. SHIVANNA, AAG;
SMT. VIDYAVATHI K., AGA FOR R1;
NAME OF R2 AND R3 DELETED AS PER THE
MEMO DATED 19.01.2017)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE
ANNEXURE-D DATED 05.04.2007 PASSED BY THE
DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY BAGALKOT
(LOK-ADALATH, BAGALKOT) IN LAC NO.353/2005, ETC.
IN W.P.NO.105562/2016
BETWEEN
RAJASHEKHAR S/O KASHINATH BALULMATH
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O SEC NO.51, PLOT 72,
BAGALKOT-587103. .. PETITIONER
(BY SRI LINGRAJ MARADI, ADV.)
AND
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BAGALKOT,
DIST. BAGALKOT-587103.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI A. G. SHIVANNA, AAG;
SMT. VIDYAVATHI K., AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE
ANNEXURE-A DATED 05.04.2007 PASSED BY THE
DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY BAGALKOT
(LOK-ADALATH) IN LAC NO.264/2001, ETC.
5
IN W.P.NO.105563/2016
BETWEEN
MALLIKARJUN S/O MAHANTAPPA MELLIGERI
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O MELLIGERI PETROL PUMP,
BAGALKOT-587101.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. LINGRAJ MARADI, ADV.)
AND
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BAGALKOT,
DIST. BAGALKOT-587103.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI A. G. SHIVANNA, AAG;
SMT. VIDYAVATHI K., AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE
ANNEXURE-B DATED 05.04.2007 PASSED BY THE
DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY BAGALKOT
(LOK-ADALATH) IN LAC NO.31/2002, ETC.
IN W.P.NO.105564/2016
BETWEEN
JAGADISH S/O SHIVAPUTRAPPA MELLIGERI,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O MELLIGERI PETROL PUMP,
BAGALKOT-587101 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. LINGRAJ MARADI, ADV.)
AND
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BAGALKOT,
DIST. BAGALKOT-587103. ... RESPONDENT
6
(BY SRI. A. G. SHIVANNA, AAG;
SMT. VIDYAVATHI K., AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE
ANNEXURE-B DATED 05.04.2007 PASSED BY THE
DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY BAGALKOT
(LOK-ADALATH) IN LAC NO.33/2002, ETC.
IN W.P.NO.105565/2016
BETWEEN
VIJAY S/O GURUPADAPPA NIDAGUNDI
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O BASAVESHWAR BANK ROAD,
BAGALKOT-587101. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. LINGRAJ MARADI, ADV.)
AND
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BAGALKOT,
DIST. BAGALKOT-587103. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. A. G. SHIVANNA, AAG;
SMT. VIDYAVATHI K., AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE
ANNEXURE-B DATED 03.04.2007 PASSED BY THE
DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY BAGALKOT
(LOK-ADALATH) IN LAC NO.148/2002, ETC.
IN W.P.NO.105570/2016
BETWEEN
SHANTABAI W/O GURUPADAPPA NIDAGUNDI,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
7
R/O BASAVESHWAR BANK ROAD,
BAGALKOT-587101.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. LINGRAJ MARADI, ADV.)
AND
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BAGALKOT,
DIST. BAGALKOT-587103.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. A. G. SHIVANNA, AAG;
SMT. VIDYAVATHI K., AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE
ANNEXURE-B DATED 07.04.2007 PASSED BY THE
DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY BAGALKOT
(LOK-ADALATH) IN LAC NO.147/2002, ETC.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN RESERVED,
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS
DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
DATE OF RESERVE - 28.06.2017
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT - 08.08.2017
8
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Advocate General accompanied by the learned Additional Government Advocate.
2. All the writ petitions involve common question of fact and law and hence are taken up for disposal by this common order.
3. The factual matrix necessary for the disposal of the above writ petitions are as follows :-
The petitioners before this Court are all land losers.
1. The petitioner in W.P.No.105566/2016 is the owner of the land comprised in S.No.422/2 measuring 9 acres 2 guntas which was notified for submergence on account of the execution of the Upper Krishna Project under notification LAQ SR No.7/96-97.9
2. The petitioner in W.P.No.112480/2015 is the owner of the land comprised in S.No.74/3 measuring 5 guntas which was notified for submergence on account of the execution of the Upper Krishna Project under notification LAQ SR No.4/2009-10.
3. The petitioners in W.P.No.112802/2015 are the owners of the land comprised in S.No.1/1/1c measuring 1 acre 20 guntas which was notified for the purpose of rehabilitation center under notification LAQ SR No.33/1997-98.
4. The petitioner in W.P.No.105562/2016 is the owner of the land comprised in S.No.264/2B measuring 04 acres 06 guntas which was notified for submergence on account of the execution of the Upper Krishna Project under notification LAQ SR No.6/1996-97.
5. The petitioner in W.P.No.105563/2016 is the owner of the land comprised in S.No.422/3 measuring 09 acres 02 guntas which was notified for submergence on account of the execution of 10 the Upper Krishna Project under notification LAQ SR No.7/1996-97.
6. The petitioner in W.P.No.105564/2016 is the owner of the land comprised in S.No.422/1 measuring 09 acres 02 guntas which was notified for submergence on account of the execution of the Upper Krishna Project under notification LAQ SR No.7/1996-97.
7. The petitioner in W.P.No.105565/2016 is the owner of the land comprised in S.No.438/2A measuring 04 acres 04 guntas which was notified for submergence on account of the execution of the Upper Krishna Project under notification LAQ SR No.7/1997-98.
8. The petitioner in W.P.No.105570/2016 is the owner of the land comprised in S.No.437/2B/2 measuring 02 acres 09 guntas which was notified for submergence on account of the execution of the Upper Krishna Project under notification LAQ SR No.7/1997-98.11
4. The undisputed facts are that the lands have been notified and acquired for a public purpose and none of the petitioners have called in question the acquisition of the lands for the said public purpose.
5. It is also not in dispute that awards have been passed and the petitioners being aggrieved have sought reference and the matter was referred to the Reference Court and were pending adjudication. The LAC numbers corresponding to the writ petitions are detailed below :-
W.P.No.105566/2016 LAC.No.34/2002 W.P.No.112480/2015 LAC.No.77/2013 W.P.No.112802/2015 LAC.No.353/2005 W.P.No.105562/2016 LAC.No.264/2001 W.P.No.105563/2016 LAC.No.31/2002 W.P.No.105564/20106 LAC.No.33/2002 W.P.No.105565/2016 LAC.No.148/2002 W.P.No.105570/2016 LAC.No.147/2002
6. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the reference cases, the same came to be forwarded 12 to the Lok Adalath, which is an alternate dispute redressal mechanism. It is also not in dispute that the cases have been referred to the Lok Adalath on request of the parties as they aspired for speedy disposal of their claims.
7. That, upon reference, the Lok Adalath, presided over by the Judicial Member and the Advocate Member, have considered and have recorded the settlement arrived at between the parties and recorded the same on various dates. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners and the respondents were present and were also represented by their respective counsels.
8. In respect of the first petition i.e. W.P.No.105566/2016, agreement was recorded by the Lok Adalath on 5.4.2007 whereby the market value was agreed and fixed at Rs.10,25,000/- per acre in respect of the grape growing land and at the rate of Rs.5,75,000/- per acre in respect of the pomegranate growing land and the rate of 13 Rs.4,13,820/- for the remaining areas and treated the same as land with non agricultural potential. Apart from determining the compensation at the rate of per acre of land the parties have also agreed for other statutory benefits. It was also agreed between the parties that interest shall be calculated as per the law laid by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Sundar - vs - Union of India reported in 2001 (7) SCC 211.
9. In respect of the second petition i.e.W.P.No.112480/2015, the pending reference was placed before the Lok Adalath and the parties agreed to re-determine the rate in respect of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.4,55,202/- per acre along with other statutory benefits.
10. In respect of the third petition i.e. W.P.No.112802/2015 the reference case was placed before the Lok Adalath and it came to be disposed of on 21.4.2007 by redetermining the market value at Rs.1,94,000/- per acre by holding the land as one with non agricultural potential.
14
11. In respect of the fourth petition i.e. W.P.No.105562/16, the reference case was placed before the Lok Adalath and came to be disposed of by recording compromise on 5.4.2007 whereby the market rate came to be re-determined at Rs.4,13,820/- per acre by treating the land as one with non-agricultural potential.
12. The fifth petition i.e.W.P.No.105563/2016, the reference case came to be disposed of by recording the statement on 5.4.2007 whereby the market value came to re-determined by adopting Rs.10,25,000/- per acre in respect of grape growing land and Rs.5,75,000/- per acre in respect of pomegranate growing land and Rs.4,13,420/- in respect of the remaining land by adopting the same as non- agricultural potential.
13. In the sixth petition i.e. W.P.No.105564/2016 similarly the reference case came to be closed by recording the settlement arrived between the parties on 5.4.2007. Under the settlement, rates came to be 15 re-determined and fixed at Rs.10,25,000/- in respect of the grape growing land and Rs.5,75,000/- in respect of pomegranate growing land and Rs.4,13,820/- in respect of the remaining by treating the same as one with non-agricultural potential.
14. In respect of the seventh petition i.e. W.P.No.105565/2016, reference came to be referred to the Lok Adalath and the same came to be disposed of by recording the settlement arrived at between the parties on 3.4.2007. Under the settlement the market value came to be re-determined and fixed at Rs.10,25,000/- per acre by treating the said land as horticulture land i.e. grape growing land.
15. In respect of the eight petition the same came to be forwarded to the Lok Adalath and came to be disposed of by arriving at the settlement between the parties on 7.4.2007 and re-determined the market value at Rs.10,25,000/- per acre in respect of grape growing land and Rs.17,000/- per mango tree. 16
16. This Court has perused the petition averments and the petitioners have adopted a uniform AND similar contention i.e. a higher compensation at the rate of Rs.90/- per sq. ft. has been awarded in reference case No.LAC No.419/2001 and that the higher rate was also agreed to by the respondents before the Lok Adalath and the settlement came to be recorded and the said reference case came to be disposed of on 21.4.2007.
17. It is contended that the lands were acquired pursuant to a notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act and the lands of the petitioners and the land which was the subject matter of LAC 419/2001 are similarly situated and that the lands of the petitioners are now certified to be within the town municipal limits and hence the respondents in collusion with the claimant in LAC No.419/2001 have agreed to and awarded a higher rate of compensation; that the same amounts to a fraud practiced on the petitioners and hence the 17 settlement recorded before the Lok Adalath is vitiated and requires to be set aside.
It is further contended by the petitioners that the act of the respondents in agreeing to a higher rate of compensation in respect of the land comprised in LAC No.419/2001 and agreeing to and paying compensation to the petitioners at a lesser rate has resulted in miscarriage of justice and that the petitioners counsel who represented them before the Legal Services Authorities has not effectively negotiated and the same could be attributed to inadvertence.
It is further contended that the petitioners have not subscribed their hands to the award passed by the Lok Adalath and hence in the light of the order by this Court in W.P.No.60578/2009 (LA), the settlement arrived at between the parties before the Lok Adlalath has to be ignored and that the order and decree entered in terms of the settlement recorded by the Lok Adalath has to be set aside and 18 the petitioners be awarded compensation at the higher rate.
Reliance is also placed on the ruling of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Dhiraj Singh - vs
- State of Haryana reported in 2014 14 SCC 127 to canvass the point that in an exercise of determination of market value of identically situated land, the owners are entitled to similar compensation but the owners are deprived of any right to redress on account of delay in approaching the court. Reliance is also placed on the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of State of Punjab and Anr. - vs - Jalour Singh and Others reported in AIR 2008 SC 1209 to contend that the writ petition against the order and decree of the lok adalath is maintainable.
18. There is no dispute with regard to the maintainability of the writ petitions. 19
19. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondent places reliance on the orders rendered in W.P.No.6618/2010 which came to be confirmed in W.A.No.6227/2011 and the order rendered in W.P.No.112475-476 of 2015. Reliance is also placed on the rulings of the Apex Court rendered in the case of State of Punjab and Anr. - vs - Jalour Singh and Others reported in AIR 2008 SC 1209, State of Karnataka and Anr. Vs. Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar and Ors. reported in AIR 2005 SC 2204, Sate of Gujarat and Ors - vs - Daya Shamji Bhai and Ors. and it is contended that the order rendered by this Court in W.P.No.60578/2009 is contrary to the provisions of the Act and law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions.
20. The respondent had filed their statement of objections. The respondent has not disputed the title of the petitioners over the land or the compensation paid. It is stated in the statement of objections that 20 payments have been made in the months of January and March 2010.
21. It is contended that the petitioners have also received the compensation amount in toto several years ago. It is nextly contended that the writ petitions are vitiated by extraordinary delay and latches. It is further contended that the petitioners had agreed to the rates and consequent to their expressing consent to the rate of compensation, the Lok Adalath has recorded the settlement and it is contended that once the petitioners/land losers have voluntarily consented to the re-determined market rates and thereafter acted upon the same by receiving the compensation, it is not open to them to renege on their consent and cannot be permitted to retract from a stand which they have voluntarily expressed. It is further contended that the award by the Lok Adalath is in the nature of contract and the settlement is binding on the parties and neither of the party has the right to unilaterally revoke the 21 same except under special circumstance involving fraud or inducement.
It is contended that the Lok Adalath merely determines a reference on the basis of the settlement arrived between the parties and merely affixes its seal of approval to authenticate the absence of any fraud or illegality.
It is nextly contended that such an award is binding on the parties and is not appealable. It is contended that the petitions are devoid of merit and the petitioners cannot assail the award as the petitions are bereft of any pleadings alleging and substantiating fraud.
It is submitted that mere bald and ambiguous pleading of fraud is insufficient to interfere with the award of the Lok Adalath and even otherwise the plea taken is not one which would constitute a fraud. 22 It is contended that the mere fact that compensation at the enhanced rate having been granted in respect of one of the survey numbers which has been subjected to acquisition, cannot be a ground for unsettling the award of the Lok Adalath. It is further contended that the petitioners do not allege any malice or nepotism against the officers, who then represented the respondents before the Lok Adalath.
It is further contended that even on facts no material has been placed to demonstrate that the lands of the petitioners are either similarly situated or abutting the land in respect of which higher rate of compensation was awarded. He would also request the Court from eschewing from consideration of the contention that the lands lie within the municipal limits. He would submit that, neither any material is placed to demonstrate that as on the date of acquisition the lands were lying within the municipal limits nor is any evidence placed either before the 23 Reference Court or before this Court to demonstrate the potentiality of the land and mere statements cannot par-take the character of evidence. He would contend that even otherwise these are factors which are subject matter of trial, which is not a course adopted by the Lok adalath.
He would also contend that it is not the case of the petitioners that the land owners were induced to consent to the rates arrived at and agreed before the Lok Adalath.
22. In the above background the short point that falls for consideration by this Court is :
'Whether the petitioners demonstrate that fraud has been practiced upon them thereby vitiating the award and decree concluded by the Lok Adalath ?24
23. This Court has given its anxious consideration and has adverted to the various contentions raised by the respective counsels.
24. A perusal of the pleadings in the writ petitions would demonstrate that the petitioners are solely resting their case on the plea that the award of higher rate of compensation is in respect of a reference numbered as LAC No.419/2007 dated 21.4.2007.
25. Apart from a muted plea, regarding the award being vitiated by fraud, the petitioners have neither pleaded nor placed on record as to how fraud has been practiced upon the petitioners
26. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that this Court has to presume fraud because the petitioners have not affixed their hands to the award drawn up by the Lok Adalath. Such contention being canvassed, this Court made a pointed query to the learned counsel as to whether he was alluding to a fact that the petitioners were not present during the 25 proceedings or whether the petitioners were not consulted by their counsels, who have affixed their hands to the award drawn up and as to whether the petitioners were unaware of the proceedings itself.
27. To the said queries, the learned counsel for the petitioners would fairly submit that the petitioners were present at the discussion and thereafter their counsel has consented to the said rates. He would attempt to canvass an argument that this Court must presume fraud on account of the fact that a lone land owner has been benefited on account of the largesse showered upon him by the respondent by way of a higher rate of compensation. He would contend that in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Dhiraj Singh - vs - State of Haryana this Court must intervene to render justice.
28. A perusal of the ruling relied upon leaves no doubt that the law is well settled i.e. the courts and the authorities are required to determine the market 26 value and grant compensation at identical rates in respect of identically situated lands. There is no quarrel with the said proposition and the ratio decidendi laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The facts involved in the said case and in the present case are wholly at variance. It is well settled and trite law that the settlement arrived at between the parties and recorded by the Lok Adalath is in the nature of the contract and is binding on the parties without exception and the limited ground upon which consent of the parties can be retracted is only if a case of fraud is practiced by the other party and the same is demonstrated.
29. The Apex Court and this Court have in a plethora of judgments have clearly held that the award of the Lok Adalath is sacrosanct.
30. In the light of the submission made by the counsel for the petitioners, conceding that the parties were before the Lok Adalath and have consented to the said rates and to the compromise drawn by the Lok Adalath and thereafter have acted upon the said 27 award by receiving the sums awarded, reliance placed by the petitioners on the order of this Court rendered in W.P.No.23235/2012 and another order rendered in W.P.No.605278/2009 are of no avail to them.
31. In Ranveer Singh - vs - State of UP through Secretary & Ors.,(Civil Appeal No.13324 of 2015 dt.22.7.2016), the Hon'ble Apex Court after relying upon its own rulings, in the judgment rendered in Daya Shamji Bhai was pleased to hold as follows :-
8. In Daya Shamji Bhai after the notification for acquisition under Section 4(1), the land owners agreed in writing to accept the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer along with 25% enhancement. With such consent they also agreed that they will not go to any Court under Section 18 of the Act. Accordingly, the land owners were paid in terms of the agreement. In spite of such agreement the land owners sought a reference to which the State objected. The reference Court rejected the contention of the State on the ground that the agreements were not registered under the Registration Act and 28 the land owners could not contract out from statute. In the background facts noted above this Court held in favour of the State that the agreement was permitted under sub-section 2 of Section 11 which gives right to the parties to enter into an agreement to receive compensation under Section 11 in terms of the contract. Such contract was held to be conclusive and binding on the parties and therefore the land owners were not entitled to seek any reference for enhancement of the compensation. It was clarified that when compensation is received under protest only then Section 18 gets attracted. In paragraph 8 of the report the issue of awarding interest and statutory benefits was also decided against the land owners in following terms:-
"8. The question of awarding interest and statutory benefits arises when the civil Court finds that the amount of compensation awarded to the landowners by the Collector is not adequate and the prevailing market value is higher than the market value determined 29 by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 23(1). For entitlement to solatium under Section 23 (2) "in addition to" market value the Court shall award solatium. Under Section 28, if the Court gets power to award interest, when Court opines that the Collector "ought to have awarded compensation in excess of the sum which the Collector did award (sic) the compensation". In other words, valid reference under Section 18 confers jurisdiction on the civil Court to consider whether the compensation awarded by the Collector is just and fair. Thereafter, when it finds that the Collector ought to have awarded higher compensation, the civil Court gets jurisdiction to award statutory benefits on higher compensation from the date of taking possession only. In view of the specific contract made by the respondents in terms of Section 11(2), they are not entitled to seek a reference. Consequently, the civil Court is devoid of 30 jurisdiction to go into the adequacy of compensation awarded by the Collector or prevailing market value as on the date of notification under Section 4(1) to determine the compensation under Section 23(1) and to grant statutory benefits."
(emphasis added)
9. In Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar reliance was placed upon Daya Shamji Bhai and the same principles were reiterated by holding that an application for reference to civil Court is maintainable only if there is non-acceptance of the award by the awardee. Once parties agree to the compensation payable and consent award is passed, the same would bind the parties unless it is set aside in appropriate proceedings by a Court of competent jurisdiction. The consent award accepted without protest extinguishes the legal right to maintain a reference for enhancement of compensation, more so when the land owners agreed not to seek any enhancement. In that case also the land 31 owners had agreed that they would not approach any Court for enhancement of compensation and had received the amount of compensation in terms of the consent award in full satisfaction of their claim. After being unsuccessful before the reference Court and in writ petition before the Single Judge, the land owners got relief by the Division Bench of the High Court on the ground that in any event they could not be deprived of their statutory right of obtaining solatium and interest in terms of the Act. The High Court's direction for payment on the basis of such statutory provisions was set aside by this Court by holding that applications under Section 18 were not maintainable. The land owners having accepted the award, were estopped from maintaining the applications. This Court further held that the High Court also had no jurisdiction under Article 226 to substitute the consent award by directing payment of statutory solatium and interest. It flows from this judgment that by virtue of the agreement, right to receive solatium and interest can be waived. 32
Further, when the land owners agreed that they would not seek enhancement of compensation by claiming any amount in addition to the amount agreed upon and that they would accept the agreed amount without any protest, the High Court could not have substituted the award by permitting further enhancement on any ground."
32. In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court it can be safely concluded that the parties lose their rights for seeking enhancement by accepting the compensation without protest especially when the same is endorsed by an agreement between the parties and the party has not only agreed but has acted upon such agreement by accepting the compensation without any protest. In such circumstances, the agreed amount has to be treated as a just compensation, permitting no addition or substitution whatsoever. The parties by acting upon the award and receiving the compensation have not only lost the right of seeking enhancement but also 33 the substantive cause of action as the parties have acted upon the consent award after receiving compensation without any protest or demur.
33. The parties who have acted upon the consent award without demur or protest are estopped from contending otherwise. In this regard a useful reference can be made to the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka
- vs - Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar reported in AIR 2005 SC 2204 wherein the Apex Court held as follows :
"13. An award under the Act is passed either on consent of the parties or on adjudication of rival claims. For the purpose of passing a consent award, it was not necessary to comply with the provisions of Article 299 of the Constitution. An agreement between the parties need not furthermore be strictly in terms of a prescribed format."
"14. The respondents having accepted the award without any demur were estopped and precluded from maintaining an 34 application for reference in terms of Section 18 of the Act. It is also trite that by reason of such agreement, the right to receive amount by way of solatium or interest, etc., can be waived."
Further the Apex Court in Daya Shamji Bhai (1995) 5 SCC 746 has held as follows :-
"The right and entitlement to seek reference would, therefore, arise when the amount of compensation was received under protest in writing which would manifest the intention of the owner of non- acceptance of the award. Section 11 (2) opens with a non obstante clause 'notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1)' and provides that 'if at any stage of the proceedings, the Collector is satisfied that all the persons interested in the land who appeared before him have agreed in writing on the matters to be included in the award of the Collector in the form prescribed by rules made by the appropriate Government, he may, without making further enquiry, make an award according to the terms of such agreement'.35
By virtue of sub-section (4), 'notwithstanding anything contained in the Registration Act, 1908, no agreement made under sub-section (2) shall be liable to registration under that Act'. The award made under Section 11(2) in terms of the agreement is, therefore, an award with consent obviating the necessary of reference under Section 18".
34. Further reference is made to the observations of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Jalour Singh cited supra would go a long way to give a finality to the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners.
35. In the case of Jalour Singh the Hon'ble Apex Court held that an award made by the Lok Adalath is final and binding on the parties and that challenge if any to such an award can be made only by invoking the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and that the scope of challenge is 36 very limited. The law in this regard is stated by the Apex Court at paragraph 12 as follows :-
State of Punjab and another vs. Jalour Singh and others reported in (2008) 2 SCC 660
12. It is true that where an award is made by the Lok Adalat in terms of a settlement arrived at between the parties (which is duly signed by parties and annexed to the award of the Lok Adalat), it becomes final and binding on the parties to the settlement and becomes executable as if it is a decree of a civil Court, and no appeal lies against it to any Court. If any party wants to challenge such an award based on settlement, it can be done only by filing a petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution, that too on very limited grounds. But where no compromise or settlement is signed by the parties and the order of the Lok Adalat does not refer to any settlement, but directs the respondent to either make payment if it agrees to the order, or approach the High Court for disposal of appeal on merits, if it does not agree, is not an award of the Lok Adalat.
The question of challenging such an order in a petition under Article 227 does not arise. 37 As already noticed, in such a situation, the High Court ought to have heard and disposed of the appeal on merits."
36. In the light of the above categorical statement of law by the Apex Court by a catena of decisions which is ubiquitous in nature, this Court need not travel further to arrive at the conclusion regarding the merits of the case, as canvassed by the petitioners and equity and equitable consideration would be of no avail to the petitioners as not only the consent of the parties is recorded but the parties have accepted and acted upon the same by receiving the compensation. The receipt of the compensation amount, as finalised before the Lok Adalath, is a fair pointer to the fact that the consent of the parties is voluntary and the same has been accepted by them without any demur or protest.
38
37. In view of the same, the plea of inequities is misplaced and is liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected.
38. In conclusion this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners have not made out a case of fraud or inducement or any other factors which constitutes fraud thereby warranting interference at the hands of this Court.
39. Accordingly it is concluded that the petitions are devoid of any merits and viewed from any angle no ground is made out which calls for interference with the impugned awards.
40. In the result the writ petitions must fail and the same are accordingly, dismissed.
In the light of the above order there shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE rs