2022 Supreme(SC) 71

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad)
K.M. Joseph, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.
New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) – Appellant
Versus
Yunus & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 901 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 9927 of 2020), Civil Appeal No.905 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.9931 of 2020), Civil Appeal No.904 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.9928 of 2020), Civil Appeal No.903 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.9929 of 2020), Civil Appeal No.906 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.9932 of 2020), Civil Appeal No.902 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.9930 of 2020)
Decided On : 03-02-2022

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Application under Section 28A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 cannot be maintained on the basis of an award passed by Lok Adalat under Section 20 of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – Award passed under Section 19 of 1987 Act is a product of compromise.
(2) When a legal fiction is employed by legislature, it becomes a duty of Court to interpret it and to give it meaning – Court cannot allow its mind to be boggled in matter of carrying legal fiction to its logical end.

Headnote:

(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 28A – Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – Sections 20 and 21 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 115 – Acquisition of land – Redetermination of compensation – Jurisdiction of Lok Adalat under Section 20 is to facilitate a settlement of disputes between 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 – 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 compensation – What Section 28A indeed insists is on decision by a Civil Court – Estoppel applies as between parties to consent decree. (Paras 26 and 31)

(B) Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – Sections 20 and 21 – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section28A – Acquisition of land – Redetermination of compensation – Application under Section 28A of Act cannot be maintained on the basis of an award passed by Lok Adalat under Section 20 of 1987 Act – An Award passed under Section 19 of 1987 Act is a product of compromise – Sans compromise, Lok Adalat loses jurisdiction – Matter goes back to Court for adjudication – An Award passed by Lok Adalat under 1987 Act is culmination of a non-adjudicatory process – Parties are persuaded even by members of Lok Adalat to arrive at mutually agreeable compromise – Award sets out terms – Provisions contained in Section 21 by which Award is treated as if it were a decree is intended only to clothe Award with enforceability – Purport of law giver is only to confer it with enforceability in like manner as if it were a decree – Legal fiction that Award is to be treated as a decree goes no further – Award passed by Lok Adalat in itself without anything more is to be treated by deeming fiction to be a decree – It is not a case where a compromise is arrived at under Order XXIII of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, between parties and court is expected to look into compromise and satisfy itself that it is lawful before it assumes efficacy by virtue of Section 21 – Without anything more, award passed by Lok Adalat becomes a decree – Enhancement of 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 – Award passed under Section (20) of 1987 Act by Lok Adalat cannot be the basis for invoking Section 28A. (Paras 37, 46, 48 and 52)

(C) Interpretation of Statute – Legal Fiction – When a legal fiction is employed by legislature, it becomes a duty of Court to interpret it and to give it meaning – In gleaning its meaning, Court is duty bound to ascertain purpose of this legislative device – Court cannot allow its mind to be boggled in matter of carrying legal fiction to its logical end – But this is not the same as holding that Court will not look to object of Act and, in particular, fiction in question. (Para 36)

Facts of the case:

In these batch of cases, the question which arises is whether the Award passed by a Lok Adalat under Section 20 of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 can form the basis for redetermination of compensation as contemplated under Section 28A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has taken the view that the Award passed by the Lok Adalat can indeed form the foundation for exercising power under Section 28A of the Act.

Findings of Court:

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. Additional District & Sessions Judge was acting as Lok Adalat. This is so even if decision of the High Court in Mangu Ram was relied upon by 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.

Result : Appeals allowed.