2021 (6) TMI 1171 - HC - Indian Laws

Lok Adalat award cannot trigger fresh inquiry under Section 28A of Land Acquisition Act 1894

Umadevi Rajkumar Jeure and Ors Versus The District Collector, Solapur and Ors

Umadevi Rajkumar Jeure and Ors Versus The District Collector, Solapur and Ors - TMI 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.