BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
The Tamil Nadu Housing Board – Appellant
Versus
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. details of land acquisition proceedings. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. execution of lok adalat award and allegations of fraud. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. arguments regarding the validity of the lok adalat award. (Para 20 , 22 , 31 , 34) |
| 4. discussion on mandatory procedures and representations. (Para 38 , 46 , 50) |
| 5. final dismissal of the writ petition with costs. (Para 61 , 62) |
ORDER :
1. 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;
(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 adjourned on several occasions for filing of counters. They were filed on 18.11.2009. From 27.11.2009 onwards, the matter was regularly adjourned till 13.04.2016. On that day, the petitioner was called absent and the petition was closed. In the mean time, the matter had been referred for settlement to Lok Adalat as per Chapter









State of Punjab and another Vs. Jalour Singh and others
K. Srinivasappa and others Vs. M. Mallamma and others
State of Madhya Pradesh and another v. Bhailal Bhai and others
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....
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.
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 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.
The Lok-Adalat can settle disputes not included in pending suits, and non-registration of an award does not invalidate it.
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.