Discrimination in compensation assessment can justify interference with Lok Adalat decisions, ensuring equitable treatment for similarly situated landowners.

JUDGMENT :

BISWANATH RATH, J.

1. This Writ Petition involves a challenge to the impugned award dated 9.09.2017 passed by the Lok Adalat in LAR Case No.7 of 2017 arising out of L.A. Case No.24 of 2000.

2. Background involved in this case is; Petitioner lost his land for being acquired by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Khariar for construction of Lower Indra Irrigation Project in the District of Nuapada. For payment of compensation at a lower side, Petitioner raised his objection in a way demanding higher compensation. The proceeding was consequently registered U/s.18 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1984 for being considered by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nuapada. Copy of protest of the Petitioner is at Annexure-2. On receipt of such protest petition the proceeding vide LAR Case No.7 of 2017 was registered. It be stated here that Opposite Party in LA Case No.24 of 2000 awarded compensation of Rs.1,37,878/- including cost of trees with 12% interest and 30% solatium.

3. Petitioner assailed the quantum on multiple grounds i.e. (i) compensation is not assessed with potential value of the land and (ii) there has also been ignorance of the cost of the valuable fruit bearing trees. After some postings the proceeding was placed before the Lok Adalat on 9.09.2017 and the proceeding before the Lok Adalat got concluded on 9.09.2017 thereby awarding compensation of Rs.80,000/- per acre for Mall/Atta land, Rs.1,00,000/- per acre of Berna/Bahal land and Rs.3,00,000/- per acre in respect of the land Gharabari in nature. It appears, on all the three previous proceedings prior to 9.09.2017 the parties remain absent and it is claimed that there is no consent of the Petitioner involving the Lok Adalat award involved herein. It is, on the premises that in the Court side disposal of the proceeding vide LAR No.183 of 2010 decided on 10.02.2023 there was awarding of compensation of Rs.1,84,000/- per acre for Mall/Atta land Rs.2,30,000/- per acre for Berna/Bahal the land and Rs.3,45,000/- per acre for Gharabari Kissam of land, Petitioner challenged the order of the Lok Adalat for being at a very very lower side and also on the ground of discrimination in the grant of compensation towards acquisition of land involving the selfsame land.

4. Challenging the impugned order learned counsel for Petitioner taking this Court to the judgment passed in Court’s side in LAR Case No.183 of 2010 (C.S. No.152 of 2014) and further drawing the attention of this Court to the ordering portion therein attempted to satisfy that there is great difference between the order of compensation at the judicial side and the order at the Lok Adalat side impugned herein.

5. Learned State Counsel, however, in his defense contended that for there is involvement of a Lok Adalat award, same cannot be interfered with in exercise of Writ jurisdiction.

6. For a question raised by the learned State Counsel on the entertainability of the Writ Petition in view of the disposal of the matter by the Lok Adalat involved herein, learned counsel for Petitioner taking this Court to the judgment of the Hon’ble apex Court in the case of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) Vrs. Yunus & Ors. decided with several other appeals on 3.02.2022 and also a further judgment of the Hon’ble apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7791-7796 of 2013, submitted that the first judgment herein squarely covers the point raised herein by the learned State Counsel.

7. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, in disposal of the proceeding before the Lok Adalat im