Point of Law: Section 22C(7) of Act 1987 speaks about cognizance of cases by Permanent Lok Adalat.

JUDGMENT :

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.

1. WP(C) No. 19575 of 2013 is filed challenging Ext.P5 award passed by the Lok Adalat in L.A.R. Execution No. 293 of 2012 in L.A.R. No. 90 of 2008 and for a consequential direction to the Lok Adalat to pass a fresh award, with the consent of the petitioner.

2. The petitioner’s property having an extent of 4.20 Ares of land comprised in Sy No. 3/1 in Block No. 240 of Changanacherry Village was acquired for construction of Changanacherry - Kottayam By-pass as per Section 4(1) Notification dated 20.01.2005. An award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 30.08.2007 fixing the land value at Rs.23,222/- per Are. Dissatisfied with the award, the petitioner filed his objection and the same was referred to the Sub Court for adjudication. The reference court as per Ext.P1 passed an award fixing the land value at the rate of Rs.1,71,255/- per Are and Ext.P2 decree was passed in terms of the award.

3. The petitioner has entrusted the matter with his counsel and the counsel filed an execution petition seeking execution of the decree. While preparing Ext.P3 execution petition, which is numbered as EP No. 293 of 2012 in L.A.R. No. 90 of 2008, the learned counsel has committed some grave mistake in calculating the amount due to the petitioner. The respondents also did not file any statement with regard to the amount due to the petitioner in the execution petition. In Ext.P3 execution petition, the petitioner had claimed only Rs.13,22,473.44/-, whereas the petitioner was in fact entitled to get Rs.16,54,899.50/-. To substantiate the same, the petitioner has produced Ext.P4 calculation statement. Petitioner submits that the same happened due to some mistake on the part of the counsel in calculating the amount due to the petitioner.

4. While the matter was pending before the execution court, the same was referred to Lok Adalat and in the Adalat Ext.P5 award was passed for an amount of Rs.13,90,800/-. The mistakes in the amount claimed in Ext.P3 could not be traced out since the respondents did not file any statement of accounts. The petitioner was not aware of the settlement reached in the Lok Adalat and he came to know about the same only when he received a copy of the award. When he calculated the amount in terms of the Judgment and decree he realised the mistakes in the amount claimed in Ext.P3. Petitioner has also a case that he has not affixed his signature in the award and therefore Ext.P1 award is non-est in law and cannot be acted upon.

5. Similar contentions were raised by the petitioners in WP(C)No. 22838 of 2013 also. They also have a case that in the execution petition only a lesser amount was claimed than that was due to them and when the matter was pending before the execution court, the same was referred to the Lok Adalat and in the Lok Adalat respective awards were passed as Exts.P16 to P20. The petitioners contended that there was huge difference in the amount claimed in the execution petitions and those mistakes could not be traced out as the respondents did not file any statement of accounts and the same could be noticed only when Exts.P16 to P20 awards were received by them. In this case also the petitioners have taken a contention that they have not affixed their signatures in Exts.P16 to P20 awards and therefore the award cannot be acted upon, since the said award is not passed on the consent of the petitioners. The petitioners submitted that admittedly there was mistake in the amount claimed in the execution petitions and the said mistakes could not be corrected at any point of time. Petitioners have a specific contention that an award cannot be passed or drawn in accordance with the settlement, without there being a prior settlement or compromise between the parties and until or unless the parties sign the award drawn in accordance with the settlement, it will not become an executable award. In fact the impugned awards are passed based on a mistaken calculation on the part of the counsel appe