BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
The Tamil Nadu Housing Board - Appellant
Vs.
The District Legal Services Authority - Respondent
Writ Petition (MD) No.5540 of 2022 & WMP(MD).No.4482 of 2022
Decided On : 14-07-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction to land acquisition facts. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. settlement terms of lok adalat. (Para 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. issues concerning enforcement of award. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. court's consideration of records and affidavits. (Para 13 , 14 , 19) |
| 5. arguments regarding authority and consent. (Para 15 , 22 , 24) |
| 6. discussion on laches in legal proceedings. (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 7. impact of estoppel in agreeing parties. (Para 28 , 30 , 34 , 41) |
| 8. legal provisions regarding compensation. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 9. executive authority in representation. (Para 50 , 51 , 52) |
| 10. judicial precedents relevant to the case. (Para 56 , 57 , 60) |
| 11. final judgment and costs awarded. (Para 61) |
ORDER :
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
The petitioner is the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. It seeks for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the first respondent in L.A.O.P.No.83 of 2008 dated 08.04.2017, and to quash the same as illegal.
Facts leading to the writ petition
2. The Housing Board had decided to develop a Housing Scheme for Madurai. It did so under the name and style of 'Ellis Nagar Housing Scheme'. For the purpose of development of this scheme, lands were acquired in Madakullam Village, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai. The third respondent had lands in the said Village. It was the owner of the following properties:
(i) Survey Nos.13/2, 14/2, both to an extent of 0.88 Acre;
(ii) Survey No.15/1 to an extent of 1.18 Acre; and
(iii) Survey No.15/7 to an extent of 1.10 Acre.
3. Notification under Section 4(1) of the erstwhile LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 was issued on 04.04.1979. The acquisition proceedings were completed. An award was passed in Award No.5/82-83 on 21.05.1982. In terms of the award, the compensation fixed was at Rs.295.45/- per cent. The compensation was deposited with the III Additional Subordinate Judge at Madurai. It is stated that the amount paid as compensation appropriated towards Income Tax dues. The claimant was not satisfied with the amounts fixed under the award. Hence, he requested the first respondent to make a reference under Section 18. As no petition was available on the file, reference was not made.
4. Insofar as the acquisition of land in Survey No.12/2 to an extent of 1.16 Acre of the same village is concerned, a reference had been made in L.A.O.P.No.23 of 1988 to the file of the I Additional Sub Court at Madurai. By way of a judgment and decree dated 26.04.1993, the compensation was fixed for the land at Rs.4166/- per cent. Consequently, the third respondent invoked Section 28A of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT . He pleaded that Survey No.12/2 is covered by the same notification and same award covering his lands. Along with the printed copy of the judgment in L.A.O.P.No.23 of 1988, he sought for enhancement.
5. The Special Tahsildar (LA), Ellis Nagar Scheme, rejected the petition seeking enhancement on 11.11.1998. He opined that the lands in L.A.O.P.No.23 of 1988 are not similar in all respects with the property, which belonged to the third respondent. The third respondent filed a petition under Section 28A(3) of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT before the Special Tahsildar seeking for reference to the Court. The Special Tahsildar referred the matter to the I Additional Subordinate Judge at Madurai in his proceedings SSR.No.8/82 dated 07.05.1999. This reference was taken on file as L.A.O.P.No.83 of 2008 before the III Additional Subordinate Judge at Madurai.
6. In the said petition, he arrayed the acquisitioning authority, the Special Tahsildar (LA), Ellis Nagar Scheme and the requisitioning body, Housing Board – the writ petitioner herein - as respondents. The prayer in the proceedings was to pass an award and fix the compensation at the rate of Rs.4166/- per cent with 30% solatium, 12% additional amount and interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of notification till the payment of compensation. The said proceedings were taken on file and notice was issued to the respondents.
7. The matter was









A participant in Lok Adalat proceedings is estopped from challenging the award on procedural or technical grounds post-execution, particularly when no fraud is substantiated.
A Lok Adalat award, once recorded and signed by involved parties, is binding and can only be challenged on limited grounds such as fraud. In this case, the absence of prompt action led to dismissal d....
Section 22C(7) of Act 1987 speaks about cognizance of cases by Permanent Lok Adalat.
Point of Law : Challenge to the award of Lok Adalat can be done only by filing a writ petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court and that too on very....
The Lok-Adalat can settle disputes not included in pending suits, and non-registration of an award does not invalidate it.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that delay, estoppel, and lack of grounds for challenging acquisition proceedings can bar a petition seeking quashing of the acquisition.
Awards passed by Lok Adalat can be challenged in writ jurisdiction where fraud is alleged, despite limitations on appeals.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.