New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) vs Yunus & Ors.

20 is to facilitate a settlement of disputes between the parties in a case. It has no adjudicatory role. It cannot decide a lis. All that it can do is to bring about a genuine compromise or settlement. Sub-Section (4) of Section 20 is important insofar as the law giver has set out the guiding principles for a Lok Adalat. The principles are justice, equality, fair play and other legal principles. 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. What we wish to emphasise is that elements of Section 23 are not in consonance as such with the guiding principles set out in Section 19(4) of the ‘1987 Act’ which are to guide a Lok Adalat. When the Court deals with the matter under Section 18, in other words, it is bound to look into the evidence and arrive at findings based on the evidence applying the legal principles which have been enunciated and arrive at the compensation. While it may be true that there is reference to ‘other legal principles’ in Section 19(4) of the 1987 Act, the Lok Adalat also can seek light from the principles of justice, equity, and fair play. The Lok Adalat by virtue of the express provisions is only a facilitator of settlement and compromise in regard to matters which are referred to it. It has no adjudicatory role. [Paras 26, 27][944-C-H] State of Punjab and Another. v. Jalour Singh and Others (2008) 2 SCC 660 : [2008] 1 SCR 922; Union of India v. Ananto (Dead) & Anr. (2007) 10 SC 748 : [2007] 3 SCR 877 – relied on.

1.2 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. An Award passed by the Lok Adalat is to be taken as a decree of a Civil Court under Section 21 of the 1987 Act. What Section 28A requires is redetermination of compensation by the Civil Court. Therefore, the Award of the Lok Adalat, in this manner of reasoning, is to be conflated to the adjudication contemplated under Section 28A of the Act. [Paras 31, 32][949-E-H; 950-A]

1.3 When a legal fiction is employed by the legislature, it becomes a duty of the Court to interpret it and to give it meaning. In gleaning its meaning, the Court is duty bound to ascertain the purpose of this legislative device. The Court cannot allow its mind to be boggled undoubtedly as contended by the learned senior counsel for the respondent, in the matter of carrying the legal fiction to its logical end. But this is not the same as holding that the Court will not look to the object of the Act and, in particular, the fiction in question. An Award passed by the Lok Adalat under 1987 Act is the culmination of a non-adjudicatory process. The parties are persuaded even by members of the Lok Adalat to arrive at mutually agreeable compromise. The Award sets out the terms. The provisions contained in Section 21 by which the Award is treated as if it were a decree is intended only to clothe the Award with enforceability. In view of the provisions of Section

21 by which it is to be treated as a decree which cannot be challenged, undoubtedly, by way of an appeal in view of the express provisions forbidding it, unless it is set aside in other appropriate proceedings, it becomes enforceable. The purport of the law giver is only to confer it with enforceability in like manner as if it were a decree. Thus, the legal fiction that the Award is to be treated as a decree goes no further. [Paras 36, 37][951-D-E; 953-D-F]

State of Karnataka v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others (2017) 3 SCC 362 : [2016] 8 SCR 499 – relied on.

1.4 The Lok Adalat as constituted under Section 19(2) would have jurisdiction inter alia to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of any case pending before any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organized. The word ‘Court’ in this context would mean the court as defined in section 2(aaa), viz., a civil, criminal or revenue court. The word ‘Court’ also includes any tribunal or any authority constituted under any law for the time being in force which for exercising judicial or even quasi-judicial functions. Thus, the word ‘Court’ in the 1987 Act in the context of Section 19(5) embraces the bodies referred to in Section 2(aaa) of 1987 Act. The manner of taking cognizance by Lok Adalats is provided in Section 20(1) read with Section 19(5). The Court as defined in Section 2 (aaa) can refer the case to the Lok Adalat. Such court, as already noticed, can be civil, criminal or a revenue court. It can be even a tribunal or authority. When success is achieved as a result of the holding of the Lok Adalat culminating in an award, the words, as the case may be, in Section 21 predicates that it may be instead of a decree of a Civil Court, an order of any other Court. Learned counsel for the appellant would point out that if a Criminal Court were to refer a matter under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to the Lok Addalat and the Lok Adalat passes an Award then such an Award would be treated as an order of the Court. However, in this regard, we have noticed the judgment of this Court reported in K.N. Govindan Kutty Menon (supra). Even when the Criminal Court refers the matter under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in order to make it executable, this Court has taken the view that it will be treated as if it were a decree. If a Revenue Court or a Tribunal which, undoubtedly, fall under Section 2(aaa) of the 1987 Act were to refer a case to the Lok Adalat under Section 20(1) and an award is passed it may become the order of the court/tribunal. In other words, if the matter were finally concluded on a regular basis, that is, without reference to the Lok Adalat, it would be an order which would be passed. [Paras 38, 39][953-H; 954-A-F]

1.5 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. Section 28A figures in Part III of the Act. It has a heading. The heading reads as ‘Redetermination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court’. The very opening words in our view deal a fatal blow to the very premise of the respondent’s contention. An award under Part III of the Act commences with a reference under Section 18. The Court proceeds to adjudicate the reference in particular by bearing in mind the matters which are to be considered under Section 23 of the Act. [Paras 41, 42][955-A, DE, 954-H]

1.6 The award which is passed by the Lok Adalat cannot be said to be an award passed under Part III. It is the compromise arrived at between the parties before the Lok Adalat which culminates in the award by the Lok Adalat. In fact, an award under Part III of the Act contemplates grounds or reasons and therefore, adjudication is contemplated and Section 26(2) of the Act is selfexplanatory. The next aspect is even more fatal to the case of the respondents. Not only must it be an award passed as a result of the adjudication but it must be passed by ‘the Court’ allowing compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the collector. The word ‘Court’ has been defined in the Act as the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction unless the appropriate Government has appointed a Special Judicial Officer to perform judicial functions of the court under this Act. We have noticed the composition of a Lok Adalat in Section 19(2) of the ‘1987 Act’. The Court is not the same as a Lok Adalat. [Paras 44, 45][955-G-H; 956-A-C]

1.7 The Award passed by the Lok Adalat in itself without anything more is to be treated by the deeming fiction to be a decree. It is not a case where a compromise is arrived at under Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, between the parties and the court is expected to look into the compromise and satisfy itself that it is lawful before it assumes efficacy by virtue of Section 21. Without anything more, the award passed by Lok Adalat becomes a decree. The enhancement of the compensation is determined purely on the basis of compromise which is arrived at and not as a result of any decision of a ‘Court’ as defined in the Act. 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. We would approve the view of the learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court in P.T. Thomas (supra). An award unless it is successfully questioned in appropriate proceedings, becomes unalterable and non-violable. In the case of a compromise falling under Order XXIII Code of Civil Procedure, it becomes a duty of the Court to apply its mind to the terms of the compromise. Without anything more, the mere compromise arrived at between the parties does not have the imprimatur of the Court. It becomes a compromise decree only when the procedures in the Code are undergone. 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. Part III of the Act contains a definite scheme which necessarily involves adjudication by the Court and arriving at the compensation. It is this which can form the basis for any others pressing claim under the same notification by invoking Section 28A. The Court cannot be entirely oblivious to the prospect of an ‘unholy’ compromise in a matter of this nature forming the basis for redetermination as a matter of right given under Section 28A. [Paras 46-48][956-CH; 957-A-C]

1.8 An Award passed under Section (20) of the 1987 Act by the Lok Adalat cannot be the basis for invoking Section 28A. [Para 49][957-D]

1.9 As far as the argument of the respondents that the award dated 12.3.2016 can be treated as the order of the Court within the meaning of Section 18 of the Act read with Section 28A of the Act, such an argument cannot be accepted. In this case, the award dated 12.3.2016 is the award passed by the Lok Adalat. This is clear from the judgment of the High Court, the case of the parties before it and the terms of the award dated 12.3.2016. In other words, this is a case whereas as noted in the impugned judgment LAR 6 of 2006 (Fateh Mohammaed v. State of U.P.) was referred to the Lok Adalat, that is the Additional District and Sessions Judge/FTC No.2, Gautam Buddh Nagar, U.P. Thus, the proceedings dated 12.3.2016 which is relied on by the respondents is indeed an award which is passed under Section 20 of the 1987 Act though it may appear to be an order. In other words, the Additional District & Sessions Judge was acting as Lok Adalat. This is so even if the decision of the High Court in Mangu Ram was relied upon by the parties and it is also referred to in the award. He was not disposing of the case as ‘the Court’ within the meaning of Act. It also cannot be treated as an award of the Court within the meaning of Section 20 and 21 of the ‘1987 Act. 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. [Paras 50, 52][957-D-H; 958-A-B,C]

P.T. Thomas v. Thomas Job AIR 2005 SC 3575 : [2005]

2 Suppl. SCR 20; Government of India v. Vedanta Limited and Others (2020) 10 SCC 1; Attar Singh and Another v. Union of India and Anr. (2009) 9 SCC 289: [2009] 12 SCR 315; Tahera Khatoon (D) by LRs. v. Salambin Mohammad (1999) 2 SCC 635 : [1999] 1 SCR 901; Vasudave v. The Commissioner and Secretary Government, Revenue Department & Ors. ILR 2007 KAR 4533; Chanabasappa & Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer ILR 2011 KAR 4276; Namdev v. State of Maharashtra 2014 SC Online Bombay 4091; Thankamma Mathew v. State of Kerala and Anr. (2017)

2 KLT 1023; K.N. Govindan Kutty Menon v. C. D. Shaji (2012) 2 SCC 51 : [2011] 15 SCR 447; Singirkonda Surekha v. G. V. Sharma and Others 2003 SCC Online AP 21; Union of India and Another v. Hansoli Devi and Others (2002) 7 SCC 273 : [2002] 2 Suppl. SCR 324; K.N. Govindan Kutty Menon v. C.D. Shaji (2012)

2 SCC 51 : [2011] 15 SCR 447; Jose Antonio Cruz Dos R. Rodriguese and Another v. Land Acquisition Collector and Another (1996) 6 SCC 746 : [1996] 8 Suppl. SCR 910 – referred to.

Umadevi Rajkumar Jeure and others v. District Collector and others (2021) 4 AIR Bom R 626; Thomas Job v. Thomas 2003 (3) KLT 936 – approved.