Every award of the Lok Adalat is deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court

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. The Legal Services Authorities Act does not make out any such distinction between the reference made by a civil court and criminal court.

The question that arose for consideration was whether an application made under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘the Old Act’) before the award is passed by the Court acting as Lok Adalat under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (‘the Legal Service Act’) could be considered by the Land Acquisition Officer for re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award passed by such Court under Section 18 of the Old Act?

It was contended by the Petitioners that what is prohibited under the Old Act is of non-consideration of the application under Section 28A of the Old Act if made three months after the date of the award. If applications are made prior to passing of the award under Section 18 of the Old Act, at the best, they deserve non-consideration till the award is made and such applications could be then considered after the award is passed. On the other hand it was argued that the applicants had accepted the award and chosen not to make reference under Section 18 of the Old Act and since there was a refusal to accept the compensation offered to Petitioners, it was deposited in the Court. Accordingly it was countered that no right had accrued to the Petitioners to make applications under Section 28A of the Old Act before the award is made by the Reference Court in connection with the other lands covered by the relevant notification. 

As observed there was no dispute about the fact that the lands of the Petitioners were covered by the notification under Section 4 of the Old Act, in respect of which the other landholders made reference under Section 18 of the Act. When the references were placed before the Lok Adalat, the consent terms were presented for making of award at the rate mentioned therein and for giving other statutory benefits like solatium, interest, etc. the applications made by the Petitioners under Section 28A of the Act were after the presentation of the consent terms in the pending reference. The consent terms were taken on record. As per Section 21 of the Legal Service Act, every award of the Lok Adalat is deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court or, as the case may be, an order of any other Court. Thus, not only such award made by Lok Adalat is a decree of the Civil Court but has become executable award of the Reference Court as Section 21 of the Legal Services Act also refers about the order of any other Court.

It was accordingly held in view of the unambiguous language of Section 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. The Act does not make out any such distinction between the reference made by a civil court and criminal court. 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 Accident Claims Tribunal and other Forums of similar nature. Even if a matter is referred by a criminal court under Section 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.

Section 28A of the old Act requires the persons, like the Petitioners in the instant case to make written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Court for redetermination of the compensation on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court. Such provision of three months for the purpose of making application would not prevent the Collector from considering the applications which are made prior to the date of the award and remained pending. However, such would not mean that the applications filed under Section 28A of the old Act before making of the award under Section 11 of the old Act by the Land Acquisition Officer could be considered as pending applications because unless there is a determination of compensation under Section 11 of the old Act, no such occasion would arise. Similarly, if such application is already disposed of as premature before the award under Section 18 is made, then the person concerned covered under the same notification and wants redetermination of compensation on the basis of the award needs to make an application afresh for such purpose within three months from the date of the award.

In the present case, the petitioners made applications after the consent terms were presented before the Court. Therefore, it could be said that there was a cause available with the Petitioners to make applications under Section 28A of the old Act in order to ensure that they also get the similar benefits of the award which was to be passed on the basis of the consent terms. In a legal parlance, it could be said that the date on which the award was made is the effective date of the valid decree or order as contemplated under Section 21 of the Legal Service Act and its effect cannot relate back to the date of submitting the consent terms. However, the applications made by the Petitioners under Section 28A of the old Act having remained pending till the award was made and consideration of such applications by the Respondent was after the date of the award, such applications could not have been rejected on the ground that they were made prior to the date of the award.

[Ramabhai Maljibhai Parmar vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer]
(Gujarat HC, 03.12.2014)