An award from Lok Adalat cannot serve as a basis for a compensation claim under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, as it is not an adjudicated court award.

JUDGMENT :

(A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.)

These writ appeals preferred by the State impugn the common judgment dated 30.05.2017 of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) Nos.28422, 31084, 31131, 31138 of 2012. The short issue decided by the learned Single Judge was whether a claimant for compensation under under Section 28A of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT was entitled to base his claim in respect of the land acquired from his possession, on an award passed by the Lok Adalat. The said issue was answered in the affirmative by the learned Single Judge by the judgment impugned in these writ appeals.

2. When these writ appeals came up for hearing before us, the learned Government Pleader brought to our notice the judgment of the Supreme Court in New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) v. Yunus and Others [2022 (9) SCC 516] , wherein the Supreme Court categorically held that an application under Section 28A cannot be maintained on the basis of an award passed by the Lok Adalat under Section 20. The reasoning adopted by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgment can be paraphrased in the following terms:

i. An award passed by the Lok Adalat under 1987 Act is the culmination of a non adjudicatory process where the parties are persuaded even by members of the Lok Adalat to arrive at a mutually agreeable compromise. The provisions contained in Section 21 of the Act, by which the Award is treated as if it were a decree is intended only to clothe the Award with enforceability. The purport of the law giver being only to confer the Award with an enforceability in a like manner as if it were a decree, the legal fiction that the Award is to be treated as a decree cannot be extended further.

ii. Section 28A of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT deals with determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the Award of the Court. The reference to the word ‘Court’ implies that an Award under Part III of the Act for the purposes of Section 28A must necessarily be one that was passed consequently to a reference under Section 18 . In such cases, the Court proceeds to adjudicate the reference, in particular, bearing in mind, the matter which are to be considered under Section 23 of the Act.

iii. For the provisions of Section 28A of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT to be attracted, not only must the award passed be a result of an adjudication, but it must also be passed by “the Court” allowing compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector. The composition of a Lok Adalat in Section 19(2) of the 1987 Act does not make it ‘a Court’ for the purposes of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT .

iv. In view of the reasons stated above, an application under Section 28A of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT cannot be maintained on the basis of an award passed by the Lok Adalat under Section 20 of the 1987 Act.

3. While these appeals could have been allowed by merely referring to the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, we cannot be oblivious to the plight of the respondents herein, who now face a situation where, notwithstanding specific directions issued form this Court to entertain their application under Section 28A of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT and award a higher compensation based on the Lok Adalat award, have to be satisfied with the meager amounts awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, since the directions issued by this Court in earlier writ petitions, (which have attained finality since they were not challenged by the State in any further proceedings) were not complied with by the appellants herein within the time granted by this Court. In matters involving compulsory acquisition of lands from citizens, we feel we would be for