TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 1823
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ey were all paid compensation by the common second respondent, who is the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition). The petitioners herein had not sought for enhancement of the compensation paid to them under Section 18 of the Act." 3. On 10.12.2011, at a Lok Adalat organised by the Taluk Legal Services Committee, Sulthan Bathery, L.A.R. No. 1 of 2008 of the Sub Court, Sulthan Bathery was settled by the District Collector, Wayanad agreeing to pay an amount of Rs.11,394/- (Rupees Eleven thousand three hundred and ninety four only) on or before 26.12.2011, failing which, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 15% per annum, till the date of realisation. According to the petitioners, compensation was paid to the claimant in the said case, one Sri. K.V. Joseph, on the above basis. Ext. P2 in W.P.(C). No. 28422 of 2012 is a copy of the said award. Copies thereof have been produced in the other writ petitions also. Shortly thereafter, the petitioners submitted applications under Section 28A of the Act requesting for re-determination of the compensation paid to them on the basis of Ext. P2 award referred to above. Ext. P3 in W.P.(C). No. 28422 of 2012 is the application dated 09.01.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... would be arbitrary and unsustainable. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that, applications for re-determination of compensation have been submitted within the period stipulated by the Statute and therefore, the rejection of the said applications was without any justification. The learned counsel, therefore, seeks interference with the impugned orders. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents in W.P.(C). No. 28422 of 2012. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the contentions in the said counter affidavit reflects the stand of the respondents in all these cases. According to the counter affidavit, the petitioners in these cases have sought for re-determination of their compensation on the basis of an award passed by a Lok Adalat. It is contended that, an application under Section 28A of the Act should be based on an award of a Court. The award passed by a Lok Adalat was based on the mutual agreement between the parties and therefore, cannot be a ground for re-determining the compensation under Section 28A of the Act. It is further pointed out that an award of the Lok Adalat is treated as a decree of the Civil Court only for the purpose of execution o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court.-(1) Where in an award under this Part, the Court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under Section 4, subsection (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under Section 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court: Provided that in computing the period of three months within which an application to the Collector shall be made under this sub-section, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded." The provision applies in a situation where in an award under Part III of the Act, the Court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section II. In su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s deemed to be "a decree of civil court or, as the case may be, an order of any other court". Therefore, an award of the Lok Adalat is deemed to be a decree of a civil court or an order of any other court. Section 2 (aaa) defines the expression "court" as follows : "(aaa) "Court" means a civil, criminal or revenue court and includes any tribunal or any other authority constituted under any law for the time being in force, to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial functions;" As per the above definition, court includes civil, criminal or revenue court, any tribunal or any other authority constituted under any law for the time being in force. The above definition would bring within its sweep all courts, Tribunals or any other authority constituted under any law for the time being in force, exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. Section 22 of the Act makes the position further clear by providing that, Lok Adalat shall have the same powers of a Civil Court. The said provision is extracted hereunder for convenience of reference: "22. Powers of Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok Adalat.- (1) The Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok Adalat shall, for the purposes of holding any determination ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as prayed for. When the matter was pending in appeal, the dispute was referred to the Lok Adalat and was settled, upon one of the brothers agreeing to sell the property to the other for consideration. When the settlement was not honoured, he initiated execution proceedings and sought to compel the other brother to execute a sale deed as agreed. With respect to the binding nature of the award of Lok Adalat, the Apex Court has in paragraph 16 of the judgment held as follows : "16. In our opinion, the award of the Lok Adalat is fictionally deemed to be decrees of Court and therefore the courts have all the powers in relation thereto as it has in relation to a decree passed by itself. This, in our opinion includes the powers to extend time in appropriate cases. In our opinion, the award passed by the Lok Adalat is the decision of the court itself though arrived at by the simpler method of conciliation instead of the process of arguments in court. The effect is the same." The question has been again considered by the Apex Court in Govindan Kutty Menon K.N. v. C.D. Shaji [2011 (4) KHC 722 : 2011 (4) KLT 857]. The said case involved proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mathi Oil Industries (supra) supports this contention and we fully accept the same." The Court has thereafter, summed up the propositions laid down in paragraph 17 of the said judgment which reads as follows : "17. From the above discussion, the following propositions emerge: 1. In view of the unambiguous language of S. 21 of the Act, every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court and as such it is executable by that Court. 2. The Act does not make out any such distinction between the reference made by a Civil Court and Criminal Court. 3. There is no restriction on the power of the Lok Adalat to pass an award based on the compromise arrived at between the parties in respect of cases referred to by various Courts (both civil and criminal), Tribunals, Family Court, Rent Control Court, Consumer Redressal Forum, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and other Forums of similar nature. 4. Even if a matter is referred by a Criminal Court under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and by virtue of the deeming provisions, the award passed by the Lok Adalat based on a compromise has to be treated as a decree capable of execution by a Civil Court....