Karnataka High Court
Vasudave And Ors. vs The Commissioner And Secretary ... on 30 August, 2007
Equivalent citations: ILR2007KAR4533, 2008(2)KARLJ666
Author: N. Kumar
Bench: N. Kumar
ORDER N. Kumar, J.
1. The petitioners are the owners of lands which was the subject matter of acquisition for the purpose of Upper Krishna Project along with the lands belonging to other owners.
2. Petitioners did not oppose the acquisition. Final notifications came to be passed, award also came to be passed. They did not seek a reference claiming higher compensation. However, some of the land owners who were dis-satisfied with the amount awarded, sought reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (For short hereinafter referred to as "L.A. Act"). One such case was LAC 469/00. The Civil Court referred the matter to Lok Adalat. In the Lok Adalat, the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer was modified and the compensation was enhanced and an award came to be passed on 20.2.2002. On coming to know of the said award where compensation was enhanced, these petitioners who had not sought reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act, filed applications under Section 28-A of the L.A. Act seeking re-determination of the compensation in terms of the award passed before the Lok Adalat. The said request of the petitioners was rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer, on the ground that the award passed by the Lok Adalat is not an award passed by the reference court and therefore Section 28-A of the L.A. Act is not attracted. Aggrieved by the said orders, petitioners have preferred these writ petitions.
3. On notices being issued to the respondents, they have entered appearance.
4. I have heard learned Counsel for both the parties.
5. The short question that arise for consideration in these writ petitions is, Whether an award passed in the Lok Adalat is an award passed by a Court within the meaning of Section 3(d) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
6. Section 3(d) of the L.A. Act defines the word 'Court' which reads as under:
The expression' Court' means a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction unless the (Appropriate Government) has appointed (as it is hereby empowered to do) a special judicial officer within any specified local limits to perform the functions of the court under this Act.
Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code as amended by Act 46 of 1999 which came into effect from 1.7.2002 provides for settlement of disputes outside the Court. It reads as under:
Section 89: Settlement of Disputes outside the Court-(1) Where it appears to the Court that there exist elements of a settlement which may be acceptable to the parties the Court shall formulate the terms of settlement and given them to the parties for their observations and after receiving the observations of the parties, the Court may reformulate the terms of a possible settlement and refer the same for -
(a) arbitration;
(b) conciliation;
(c) judicial settlement including settlement through Lok Adalat; or
(d) mediation.
From the aforesaid provision, it is clear when a landlord who is dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded, seeks a reference to a civil Court and the civil Court is satisfied that their exists an element of a settlement which may be acceptable to the parties, it is under an obligation to formulate the terms of settlement and then refer the same for one of the modes of resolution of dispute, provided under Section 89. One such mode provided is a judicial settlement including settlement through Lok Adalat.
Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 89 provides that, Where a dispute has been referred to Lok Adalat, the Court shall refer the same to Lok Adalath in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (For short hereinafter referred to as the "LA Act") and all other provisions of that Act shall apply in respect of a dispute so referred to Lok Adalat.
7. The Legal Services Authorities Act (for short hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), 1987 was enacted by the Parliament to constitute legal service authorities to provide free and competent legal services to the weaker sections of the society, to ensure opportunities for securing justice and not deny to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities and to organise the Lok Adalat to secure that the operation of the legal system, promotes justice on the basis of equal opportunity.
8. 'Lok Adalat' has been defined under Clause (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section (2) of the Act to mean "a Lok Adalat organised under Chapter VI". Section 19 of the Act provides for "Organisation of Lok Adalats". Sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the Act which deals with Organisation of Lok Adalat makes it clear that, "Every Lok Adalat organised for an area shall consist of such number of judicial officers of the area as may be specified by the State Organisation possessing such qualifications and experience as may be prescribed by the State Government. Sub-section (5) of Section 19 provides that a Lok Adalat shall have the jursidiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute. Section 20 of the Act provides for "Cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats" and Section 21 of the Act deals with "Award of Lok Adalat". Section 20(1) of the Act provides, in any case where a case is pending before the court or tribunal, if the parties thereof makes a joint application to the court or tribunal intimating their intention to compromise the matter, the court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, the court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. However, after the amendment to the Civil Procedure Code introducing Section 89, an obligation is now cast upon the Court itself, in a given case, if, it is satisfied that the matter is to be resolved through a Lok Adalat, even without request from the parties, is empowered to refer the matter to Lok Adalat.
9. Section 21 of the Act deals with the awards to be passed by Lok Adalat which reads as under:
(1) Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court or, as the case may be, an order of any other court and where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok Adalat in a case referred to it under Sub-section (1) of Section 20, the court fee paid in such case shall be refunded in the manner provided under the Court Fees Act, 1870.
(2) Every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any court against the award.
Section 22 of the Act deals with the powers of Lok Adalats which says, The Lok Adalats shall, for the purposes of holding any determination under this Act, have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(5 of 1908) while trying a suit in respect mentioned thereunder.
Sub-Section (3) of Section 22 declares that, "All proceedings before the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of Sections 193, 219 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and every Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a civil court for the purpose of Section 195 and Chapter XXVT of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
10. In the light of the aforesaid statutory provisions contained in the Land Acquisition Act, Code of Civil Procedure, Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and in particular the amendment to the Civil Procedure Code by introducing Section 89, it is clear that the award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court and it has the force of such a decree which infact could be executed in a civil court. Moreover, the said award of a Lok Adalat is passed by consent of the parties and therefore it is fully binding on the parties to the said award.
11. Insofar as Section 28-A of the LA Act is concerned, the principle underlining the said provision is, if a land owner who has not sought for any reference to a civil court seeking higher compensation, should not be denied the benefit of higher compensation if a reference court or the appellate court were to pay higher compensation to a landlord who is similarly placed. Therefore, the Parliament in its wisdom thought of introducing Section 28-A in order to see that innocent, illiterate and ignorant landlords who are not fully aware of the rights given to them under law are not denied the benefit of the law. This provision is in consonance with equality clause enshrined in our Constitution under Article 14. Therefore, by introducing Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, what was intended was to extend the benefit of payment of higher compensation even to those landlords who had not sought for a reference, provided they filed an application within 30 days from the date of judgment and award of the reference court. When that being the intention of the Parliament, when an award is passed by a Lok Adalat by consent, the said award falls within the order under Section 28-A of the L.A. Act passed by the Court and therefore the landlords are entitled to the benefit of higher compensation as per the award passed by the Lok Adalat. The approach of the trial Court is wholly erroneous, contrary to law and cannot be sustained.
12. In that view of the matter, petitioners are entitled to the reliefs sought for in these petitions. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER Writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act refusing to re-determine the compensation in terms of the Lok Adalat award is hereby set-aside.
The respondent/Land Acquisition Officer is directed to consider the application of the petitioners under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act for re-determination of the compensation payable to the lands belonging to them which are acquired, with reference to the award of the Lok Adalat and pass appropriate orders.