Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 56490
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T.R.RAVI, J
STATE OF KERALA – Appellant
Versus
NARAYANAN, KUNJHIKELY NAMBIAR – Respondent
OP(C) NO. 422 OF 2020 | OP(C) NO. 423 OF 2020 | OP(C) NO. 426 OF 2020 | OP(C) NO. 437 OF 2020 | OP(C) NO. 438 OF 2020 | OP(C) NO. 1280 OF 2021 | OP(C) NO. 1519 OF 2021 | OP(C) NO. 1548 OF 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For the Respondents: PHILIP MATHEW
Execution of awards from District Legal Services Authority cannot be challenged without proper legal proceedings, and attachments can proceed against the State’s properties.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Article 227 - Execution proceedings against the State for awards - Challenges raised regarding validity of awards due to lack of signature by the District Collector - Court clarified that the execution of awards can proceed if the awards are not legally challenged - Original petitions are dismissed. (Para 7)
(B) Awards from the District Legal Services Authority are considered valid if regular proceedings are not initiated against them, regardless of objections raised post-award. (Para 5)
JUDGMENT
All these original petitions are filed against orders whereby attachment was effected of properties of the State for execution of awards passed by the District Legal Services Authority. The contention now taken in these original petitions is that the award itself is vitiated since the District Collector has not signed the award even though he was the 2nd respondent in the proceedings. Ext.P1 is the application submitted by the respondents for enhanced compensation. The application was considered by the Lok Adalat held at the DLSA, Wayanad and Ext.P2 award was passed. It is seen from Ext.P2 that the disputes between the parties had been settled based on terms of settlement. It is also seen that calculation statement is filed. The order says that the respondents were present and there was no objection for settling the matter. It is in these circumstances that the Lok Adalat ordered payment of compensation. Ext.P2 would show that on behalf of the State, the 1st respondent had signed the award. Admittedly, the award has not been challenged in a manner known to law. So long as the award exists, there can be no contention that no execution proceedings can be initiated. The jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised for challenging Ext.P2 award or for a declaration that Ext.P1 itself is not maintainable. Since execution is only consequential to Ext.P2, there can be no challenge to the attachment proceedings. There is no merit in the contentions taken in the original petitions.
The original petitions fail and are dismissed.
