Validity of three awards passed by Lok Adalat under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987 on a reference made to it in three suits is under challenge.

2. The picture that emerges from the facts relating to the proceedings before the Lok Adalat, of which one of the members was a judicial officer and the other an advocate, is a mosaic of callousness, casual approach, disrespect for the statutory procedure, breach of the rules of grammar of the language and expressions which do not make any sense. It has catapulted the parties to the suits, who are members of a family, into a controversy which is worse than the one which is the cause of action for the suits.

3. The petitioner is the brother of the respondents. They and their mother, Padmavathy, had in their joint ownership 13 cents of land. In a partition that took place in 1992 five cents was allotted to the petitioner and eight cents jointly to the respondents and the mother. After the death of the mother the petitioner filed O.S. No. 2291 of 2014 in Munsiff Court, Kodungallur for partition of the right of the mother and separate allotment of his share in it. Respondents filed O.S. No. 2936 of 2014 claiming exclusive title to above said 8 cents and praying for fixation of its boundary. On the allegation that in the partition deed of 1992 some mistakes crept into the description of the properties the petitioner filed O.S. No. 165 of 2015 for rectification of the deed.

4. The disputes between the parties were referred to Lok Adalat. At the Adalat the disputes were settled and Exts P7, P8 and P9 awards were passed, which are extracted below.

Award in O.S. No. 2936 of 2014

"Both parties present. Discussed. Matter settled. The plaintiff agreed to execute and register release deed in respect of 13 cents of property situated in Sy.No.580/1 of Mothala village (1330/1974), in favour of defendant on a consideration of 30 lakhs. The plaintiff agreed to vacate the plaint schedule property in getting consideration and agreed to execute and register release deed or any other deed of their choice on or before 31.12.2015. Expenses for the execution shall bear the defendant. Award passed."

Award in O.S. No. 2291 of 2014

"Both parties present. Matter settled in view of award passed in O.S. No. 2936 of 2014. Award in O.S. No. 2936 of 2014 in all connection matter."

Award in O.S. No. 165 of 2015

"Both parties present. Discussed. Matter settled in view of Award passed in O.S. No. 2936 of 2014".

5. The main ground stated in this Original Petition is that it is not the terms of the compromise the parties entered into which are recorded in Ext P7 Award. It is specifically stated that the amount the petitioner agreed to pay the respondents was Rs.13,00,000/- (Rupees Thirteen lakhs only) and not Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty lakhs only) as stated in Ext P6 award.

6. Heard Sri Babu Karukapadath and Sri K.B. Pradeep learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondents respectively.

7. The function of a Lok Adalat organised under Section 19 of the Legal Services Authority Act 1987 (hereinafter called the Act ) is only to help the parties to the dispute arrive at a compromise or settlement, which is seen from Section 20(3) of the Act which is extracted below:-

"Where any case is referred to a Lok Adalat under sub-section (1) or where a reference has been made to it under sub-section (2), the Lok Adalat shall proceed to dispose of the case or matter and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties."

8. The Adalat cannot enter a finding. It can only record the compromise or settlement between the parties. Section 20(4) of the Act is relevant in this context. It runs as follows:-

"Every Lok Adalat shall, while determining any reference before it under this Act, act with utmost expedition to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties and shall be guided by the principles of justice, equity, fair play and other legal principles."

9. Adalat cannot forgo the principl