- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.8843 OF 2017

WITH WP/8844/2017 WITH WP/8845/2017 WITH WP/8846/2017

WITH WP/8847/2017

GODAVARI MARATHWADA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION THROUGH THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Mr.S.G.Bhalerao, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.S.N.Morampalle, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

Mr.V.D.Hon, Sr.Counsel i/b Mr.N.R.Jamdhade, Advocate for respondent

Nos. 3 to 6 in WP No.8843/2017 and for respondent Nos. 3 to 12 in

other writ petitions.

( CORAM : BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.)

DATE : FEBRUARY 18, 2022

PER COURT :

1.

Heard learned Advocate Mr.Bhalerao for the petitioner and the

learned Senior Advocate Mr.Hon, appearing for the claimants in the five

writ petitions which are listed before this Court at Item No.921.

The learned Advocate for the petitioner has invited my attention

to a decision of the Apex Court in case of New Okhla Industrial

Development Authority (NOIDA) Vs. Yunus and others in Civil Appeal

No.901/2022 dated 03/02/2022, where the question which arose for

khs/Feb.2022/8843

- 2 -

determination before the Apex Court is, whether the award passed by

the Lokadalat u/s 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 can

form a basis for re-determination of compensation as contemplated u/s

28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The High Court had taken a

view that such an award passed by the Lokadalat can form a

foundation for exercising powers u/s 28-A of the Act.

2.

Taking a note of the cleavage of opinion expressed by different

High Courts on the said point and also on the consideration of the

scheme of the Enactment under which the Lokadalats are created to

discharge the function, a conclusion reached at is expressed in the

following words :-

"48. An Award passed under Section 19 of the 1987 Act is a

product of compromise. Sans compromise, the Lok Adalat loses

jurisdiction. The matter goes back to the Court for

adjudication. Pursuant to the compromise and the terms being

reduced to writing with the approval of the parties it

assumes the garb of an Award which in turn is again deemed

to be a decree without anything more. We would think that it

may not be legislative intention to treat such an award

passed under Section 19 of the 1987 Act to be equivalent to

an award of the Court which is defined in the Act as already

noted by us and made under Part III of the Act. An award of

khs/Feb.2022/8843

- 3 -

the Court in Section 28A is also treated as a decree. Such

an Award becomes executable. It is also appealable. Part III

of the Act contains a definite scheme which necessarily

involves adjudication by the Court and arriving at the

compensation. It is this which can form the basis for any

others pressing claim under the same notification by

invoking Section 28A. We cannot be entirely oblivious to the

prospect of an ‘unholy’ compromise in a matter of this

nature forming the basis for re-determination as a matter of

right given under Section 28A.

49. We would, therefore, approve the view taken by the

Bombay High Court in Umadevi Rajkumar Jeure (supra) and the

learned single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in Vasudave

(supra) and hold that an Award passed under Section (20) of

the 1987 Act by the Lok Adalat cannot be the basis for

invoking Section 28A.

50. As far as the argument of the respondents that the award

dated 12.3.2016 can be treated as the order of the Court

within the meaning of Section 18 of the Act read with

Section 28A of the Act, we are of the view such an argument

cannot be accepted. Unlike in the facts of the case decided

by the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in 2003 SCC ONLINE

AP 21 (supra) which has been distinguished by the Bombay

High Court in Umadevi (supra) on the score that in the case from

Andhra Pradesh, the Reference Court has passed an award

khs/Feb.2022/8843

- 4 -

based on a compromise arrived at between the parties before

the Lok Adalat, in this case, the