The Lok Adalat must comply with legal protocols regarding hearings and membership, or its awards risk being invalidated.

1. Heard Sri Dileep Chandra Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This petition has been filed under Art.227 of the Constitution of India praying for setting - aside the order dated 14.05.2016 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate / Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Gautam Buddh Nagar, in Original Suit No. 1323 of 2011, M/S S.G. Rockbuild Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pradeep Kumar and others. Further prayer has been made to set - aside the order dated 13.11.2018 passed by Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) / Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar, in Review Petition No. 04 of 2016 in Original Suit No. 1323 of 2011, M/S S.G. Rockbuild Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pradeep Kumar and others.

3. The brief facts pleaded in the petition are that the defendants / petitioners entered into a registered agreement to sale dated 09.04.2008 with the plaintiffs / respondents on certain terms and conditions. The defendants / petitioners cancelled the agreement to sale by means of notice dated 13.10.2011. On 02.11.2011, the plaintiffs / respondents instituted an Original Suit No. 1323 of 2011 praying for a decree of specific performance of contract of sale dated 09.04.2008 against the defendants / petitioners. An application under O.7, R.11 C.P.C. was filed by the defendants / petitioners before the trial court praying for rejection of the plaint of the original suit aforesaid.

4. It is alleged in the petition that the plaintiffs / respondents under undue pressure entered into compromise with the defendants / petitioners for specific performance of contract of sale dated 09.04.2008 and the same was filed and allegedly verified by the court on 20.02.2016. On 23.02.2016, the trial court framed 7 issues for adjudication in the suit and decided issue no. 3 on the same date. The date of 28.03.2016 was fixed for deciding issue no. 4 which was decided and the case was directed to be fixed for 14.05.2016 for disposal of compromise before Lok Adalat. None of the parties appeared before the Lok Adalat to verify the compromise or accept the terms of compromise but on 14.05.2016, the award was passed. Against the aforesaid award dated 14.05.2016 which was passed by the court in the capacity of Lok Adalat, the petitioners filed a review petition. The plaintiffs / respondents filed their objection to the review petition on 30.07.2016. The review petition was dismissed by the order dated 13.11.2018.

5. Learned counsel for the defendants / petitioners has submitted that the trial court passed the award dated 14.05.2016 assuming the powers of Lok Adalat which is against the provisions of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 . He has submitted that as per S.19, atleast two members are required to decide the compromise or settlement between the parties in Lok Adalat but in the present case, it has not been complied and the case has been decided by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gautam Buddh Nagar. He has further submitted that under S.20 of the aforesaid act, one of the parties is required to make an application to the court to refer the matter to Lok Adalat for settlement and if the court is satisfied that there is chance of settlement between the parties, sends the matter to Lok Adalat. In the present case, the trial court without recording any satisfaction, decided the case acting as Lok Adalat. As per S.20 of the Act aforesaid, the cases can only be referred to Lok Adalat after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. In the present case, none of the par