( 1 ) THE petitioners are the owners of lands which was the subject matter of acquisition for the purpose of Upper Krishna Project along with the lands belonging to other owners.

( 2 ) PETITIONERS did not oppose the acquisition. Final notifications came to be passed, award also came to be passed. They did not seek a reference claiming higher compensation. However, some of the land owners who were dis-satisfied with the amount awarded, sought reference to the Civil Court under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition act (For short hereinafter referred to as "l. A. Act" ). One such case was LAC 469/00. The Civil Court referred the matter to Lok Adalat. hi the Lok Adalat, the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer was modified and the compensation was enhanced and an award came to be passed on 20. 2. 2002. On coming to know of the said award where compensation was enhanced, these petitioners who had not sought reference under Sec. 18 of the L. A. Act, filed applications under Section 28-A of the L. A. Act seeking re-determination of the compensation in terms of the award passed before the Lok Adalat. The said request of the petitioners was rejected by the Land Acquisition officer, on the ground that the award passed by the Lok Adalat is not an award passed by the reference court and therefore Sec. 28-A of the L. A. Act is not attracted. Aggrieved by the said orders, petitioners have preferred these writ petitions.

( 3 ) ON notices being issued to the respondents, they have entered appearance.

( 4 ) I have heard learned counsel for both the parties.

( 5 ) THE short question that arise for consideration in these writ petitions is, "whether an award passed in the Lok Adalat is an award passed by a Court within the meaning of Sec. 3 (d) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?"

( 6 ) SEC. 3 (D) of the L. A. Act defines the word 'court' which reads as under:

"the expression 'court' means a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction unless the (Appropriate government) has appointed (as it is hereby empowered to do) a special judicial officer within any specified local limits to perform the functions of the court under this act".

Sec. 89 of the Civil Procedure Code as amended by Act 46 of 1999 which came into effect from 1. 7. 2002 provides for settlement of disputes outside the Court. It reads as under: "sec. 89: Settlement of Disputes outside the Court (1) Where it appears to the Court that there exist elements of a settlement which may be acceptable to the parties the Court shall formulate the terms of settlement and given them to the parties for their observations and after receiving the observations of the parties, the Court may reformulate the terms of a possible settlement and refer the same for - (a) arbitration; (b) conciliation; (c) judicial settlement including settlement through Lok Adalat; or (d) mediation. From the aforesaid provision, it is clear when a landlord who is dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded, seeks a reference to a civil Court and the civil Court is satisfied that their exists an element of a settlement which may be acceptable to the parties, it is under an obligation to formulate the terms of settlement and then refer the same for one of the modes of resolution of dispute, provided under section 89. One such mode provided is a judicial settlement including settlement through Lok Adalat". Clause (b) of Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 89 provides that,

"where a dispute has been referred to Lok Adalat, the court shall refer the same to Lok Adalath in accordance with the provisions of Sub-sec. (l) of Section 20 of the legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (For short hereinafter referred to as the "la Act") and all other provisions of that Act shall apply in respect of a dispute so referred to Lok Adalat"

.

( 7 ) THE Legal Services Authorities Act (for short hereinafter referred to as the "act"), 1987 was enacted by the Parliament to constitute legal service authorities to provide free and competen