Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Anil Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Rachit Mittal, Adv. Ms. Ritika Dawalia, Adv. Mr. Sudhir Naagar, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv. Mr. V.K. Shukla, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mathur, AOR Mr. Keith Varghese, Adv. Mr. Chiranjeev Johri, Adv. Mr. M.K. Tiwari, Adv.

Key Points: - The Supreme Court held that an Award passed by Lok Adalat under Section 20 cannot form the basis for redetermination of compensation under Section 28A of the Act. (!) (!) - The Court explained the correct interpretation of Section 21’s deeming fiction, clarifying that awards under Section 20 are not awards of a Court under Part III and thus cannot be treated as decrees of a Civil Court for Section 28A purposes. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The decision emphasizes Lok Adalat’s non-adjudicatory function and that its awards are settlements/compromises, not Court adjudications, and thus cannot be invoked under Section 28A. (!) (!) (!) - The Court reaffirms that Section 28A requires adjudication by a "Court" as defined in the Act, i.e., a Civil Court, not a Lok Adalat award. (!) (!) (!) - The appeals are allowed; impugned judgments declaring Lok Adalat awards as basis for Section 28A are set aside. (!)

What is the legal position on whether an Award passed by Lok Adalat under Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 can form the basis for redetermination of compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?

What is the proper interpretation and scope of the legal fiction that Lok Adalat awards are deemed decrees under Section 21 of the 1987 Act for the purpose of Section 28A?

What is the Court’s ruling on whether an Award passed by Lok Adalat under Section 20 can be treated as an order of the Court under Section 28A, and whether it can be basis for redetermination of compensation?