K. Surendra Mohan, J.

The common question that arises for determination in these cases is - Whether a claimant is entitled to claim re-determination of the amount of compensation paid for land acquired from his possession, under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), on the basis of an award passed by a Lok Adalat?

2. The facts that are required to be noted for the purpose are the following :

The petitioners in these cases are all persons whose lands had been acquired for a public purpose. They are all persons who own properties in Vythiri Taluk of Wayanad District. The properties in all these cases were acquired as per a common notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, for the Karapuzha Irrigation Project. They were all paid compensation by the common second respondent, who is the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition). The petitioners herein had not sought for enhancement of the compensation paid to them under Section 18 of the Act.

3. On 10.12.2011, at a Lok Adalat organised by the Taluk Legal Services Committee, Sulthan Bathery, L.A.R. No. 1 of 2008 of the Sub Court, Sulthan Bathery was settled by the District Collector, Wayanad agreeing to pay an amount of Rs.11,394/- (Rupees Eleven thousand three hundred and ninety four only) on or before 26.12.2011, failing which, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 15% per annum, till the date of realisation. According to the petitioners, compensation was paid to the claimant in the said case, one Sri. K.V. Joseph, on the above basis. Ext.P2 in W.P.(C).No.28422 of 2012 is a copy of the said award. Copies thereof have been produced in the other writ petitions also. Shortly thereafter, the petitioners submitted applications under Section 28A of the Act requesting for re-determination of the compensation paid to them on the basis of Ext.P2 award referred to above. Ext.P3 in W.P.(C). No.28422 of 2012 is the application dated 09.01.2012, which has been acknowledged receipt of as per Ext.P4 by the second respondent on the same day itself. As per identical orders issued, one of which is Ext.P5 in the writ petition referred to above, the second respondent has rejected the requests. In the other writ petitions, the orders are evidenced by Ext.P3 therein. The said orders are all under challenge in these writ petitions. As per the impugned orders, the second respondent has taken a stand that, Section 28A is applicable only to cases where enhancement in compensation has been granted on the basis of a judgment of court. Since an award passed by a Lok Adalat is on the basis of agreement between parties, no claim for enhancement of compensation or re-determination thereof was maintainable under Section 28A of the Act. It is further stated that, a decision had been taken on 03.04.2012 at a meeting held in the Collectorate that, such awards need not be considered for the purpose of granting additional compensation. The additional Government Pleader has also advised against granting enhancement in compensation. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions challenging the said orders of rejection of their applications by the second respondent.

4. According to Adv. Dr. George Abraham, who appears for the petitioners in all these cases, an award passed by a Lok Adalat is a deemed decree as per the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Legal Services Authorities Act' for short). Such awards have also been clothed with finality and are not made subject to an appeal. Therefore, it is contended that, the stand taken by the second respondent in the impugned orders is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. According to the learned counsel, Section 28A was introduced to the Act with the object of ensuring that proper compensation was paid for lands acquired, to all land owners irrespective of whether they had sought for a reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act or not.