THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY
Writ Petition No.21315 of 2017
ORDER (per Hon'ble Sri Justice A. Venkateshwara Reddy):
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the entire records connected to Lok Adalat Award Nos.674, 673, 670, 679, 658, 671, 675, 672, 685, 454, 452, 455, 657, 661, 659 and 680 of 2016 passed by the first respondent-Lok Adalat Bench at Khammam, in LAOP No.619 of 2014 pending on the file of the second respondent-Principal District Judge, Khammam, to examine and set aside the same, declaring as illegal, irregular, irrational and violative of the provisions of Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, contrary to the Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the Principal District Judge, Khammam to adjudicate the petitioners' claim for the compensation payable in respect of the lands in Survey Nos.109 to 112, 114, 115 and 117 to 122 of Page 2 of 43 UBJ & AVRJ WP No.21315 of 2017 Kommepalli Village, Sathupalli Mandal, Khammam Distirct.
2. Heard Sri A. Giridhar Rao, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Sri J. Anil Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 & 2, Sri J. Srinivasa Rao, learned Standing Counsel for 4th respondent, Ms. B. Rachana Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 9, whereas respondent Nos.6, 9, 13 and 20 died represented by their legal representatives as respondent Nos.21 to 24 respectively but they remained absent.
3. The relevant facts leading to filing of this writ petition are as under:
The petitioners are the absolute owners of land admeasuring Ac.125.33 guntas in Survey Nos.109 to 112, 114, 115 and 117 to 122 of Kommepalli Village, Sathupalli Mandal, Khammam District and it is their ancestral property. Late Singapogu Rajaiah was the absolute owner of the said property, who had three sons viz., Singapogu Raghavulu, Singapogu Samelu and Singapogu Pullaiah (first petitioner herein). The petitioners 1 to 6 are Page 3 of 43 UBJ & AVRJ WP No.21315 of 2017 representing all the three sons and they are entitled for compensation in the ratio of 1/3rd each. Similarly, one Alawala Radhakrishna Murthy, @ Radhakrishna Rao was the absolute owner and possessor of the lands Ac.7.01 guntas, Ac.1.00 guntas and Ac.2.35 guntas in Survey Nos.110, 111/A, 114/A/1, 115/A and 109 of Kommepalli Village, Sathupalli Mandal, Khammam District, and his legal representatives, the petitioners 7 to 9 are entitled for compensation in respect of said property. That on the requisition of the 4th respondent-the Chairman and Managing Director of Singareni Collieries Company Limited land to the extent of Ac.489.04 guntas of Kommepalli Revenue Village of Sathupalli Mandal was acquired and an amount of Rs.3,48,935/- per acre was determined as compensation. The respondent No.3-Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) referred the dispute in Award Proceedings RC No.C/134/2008, dated 31.12.2013 under Sections 30 and 31 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by depositing the compensation amount in LAOP No.619 of 2014 before the second respondent, the Principal District Judge, Khammam. Assailing the Common Award in LAOP Page 4 of 43 UBJ & AVRJ WP No.21315 of 2017 No.619 of 2014, the petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 6 have filed Writ Petition No.5963 of 2014 and several other claimants have also filed batch of writ petition Nos.13942, 34299 of 2013, 3314, 3730, 3777, 5215, 5576 and 28667 of 2014. All these writ petitions were referred to the High Court Legal Services Committee (for short 'HCLSC') for settlement by way of compromise wherein 4th respondent, Singareni Collieries Company Limited had agreed to pay an amount of Rs.10,95,000/- per acre towards compensation and deposited enhanced compensation amount to the credit of LAOP No.619 of 2014. Accordingly, WP No.5963 and batch of writ petitions stated above were disposed of by common order dated 07.04.2016 as "settled in Lok Adalat". However, the second respondent instead of deciding the matter on merits, referred LAOP No.619 of 2014 for settlement before Lok Adalat, thereby the first respondent has recorded the awards on compromise in respect of the petitioners' land, and that without their consent or participation, Lok Adalat Awards were passed. Thus, the petitioners assailing 16 awards passed in favour of respondents 5 to 20 as shown below in the tabular form: Page 5 of 43
UBJ & AVRJ WP No.21315 of 2017 Sl. Survey PIC/Award Parties to compromise Compensation No. Number Number and amount date
1. 111, 112, 674/2016, Between T. Udayalakshmi, Rs.14,83,673/ 109 and Dt. 26.07.2016 claimant No.182 and -
114 to112 Respondents 3 and 4
2. " 673/2016, Between Peddireddy Maheswara Rs.24,63,750/
dt.26.07.2016 Rao, claimant No.203 and -
Respondents 3 and 4.
3. " 670/2016, Between Peddireddy Haribabu, Rs.21,90,000/
dt. 26.07.2016 claimant No.205 and respondents -
3 and 4.
4. " 679/2016, dt. Between Kankati Varahalu, Rs.70,64,141/ 26.07.2016 claimant No.202 and respondents -
3 and 4.
5. " 658/2016, Between Bonthu Rama Rao, Rs.50,82,623/ dt. 25.07.2016 Claimant No.229 and -
respondents 3 and 4.
6. " 671/2016 Between Peddireddy Rs.21,90,000/ dt. 26.07.2017 Purushotham Rao, claimant -
No.236 and respondents 3 and 4
7. " 675/2016, Between Peddireddy Rs.21,90,000/ dt. 26.07.2016 Ramakrsihna Rao, claimant -
No.237 and respondents 3 and 4
8. " 672/2016, Between J. Venkata Ramana, Rs.22,24,963/ dt. 26.07.2016 claimant No.262 and respondents -
3 and 4
9. " 685/2016 Between G. Raghupathi Reddy, Rs.39,08,448/ dt. 02.08.2016 claimant No.264 and respondents -
3 and 4
10. " 454/2016, Between K. Bhaskara Reddy, Rs.30,79,268/ dt. 29.03.2016 claimant No.157 and respondents -
3 and 4
11. " 452/2016, Between B. Venkateswara Rao, Rs.20,63,330/ dt. 29.03.2016 claimant No.154 and respondents -
3 and 4
12. " 455/2016, Between B. Gandhi Babu, Rs.22,92,590/ dt. 29.03.2016 claimant No.158 and respondents -
3 and 4
13. " 657/2016, Between U. Rama Rao, claimant Rs.9,05,550/-
dt. 25.07.2016 No.421 and respondents 3 and 4 14 " 661/2016, Between S. Vijaya Lakshmi, Rs.6,02,700/-
dt. 25.07.2016 claimant No.422 and respondents 3 and 4
15. " 659/2016, Between V. Pitchaih, claimant Rs.15,33,000/ dt. 25.07.2016 No.222 and respondents 3 and 4 -
16. " 680/2016, Between M. Anasurya, claimant Rs.13,57,744/ dt. 26.07.2016 No.197 and respondents 3 and 4 - Page 6 of 43
UBJ & AVRJ WP No.21315 of 2017 The petitioners and their counsel appeared before the Lok Adalat and opposed passing any such awards. They had not agreed for any compromise; in fact they have legitimate claim for compensation payable in respect of the lands acquired in Survey Nos.109 to 112, 114, 115, and 117 to 122 of Kommepalli Village, Sathupalli Mandal. But the Lok Adalat passed the above awards for the lands of the petitioners in favour of the respondents 5 to 20 who have no manner of right, title, interest or possession over any extent of the above said lands. Hence, the writ petition is filed challenging the said awards stated above.
4. The respondents 1 & 2 have filed counter. The respondent No.4 has filed a separate counter, whereas, respondents 5 to 12, 14 and 16 to 19 have filed separate counter. The petitioners have filed reply to the counters of respondents 1 & 2 and respondents 5 to 12, 14 and 16 to
19. The respondents 5 to 12, 14 and 16 to 19 have also filed their additional counter along with their title documents in support of their claim for compensation as per the Lok Adalat awards in question. Page 7 of 43
UBJ & AVRJ WP No.21315 of 2017
5. The main averments of the counter of respondents 1 & 2 are that a coordination meeting was held in the High Court premises on 30.05.2015 with all the stakeholders relating to the Kommepally Land Acquisition including the representatives of claim petitioners before the Executive Chairman, Telangana State Legal Services Authority (for short 'TSLSA'), Hyderabad and it was decided and resolved as under:
"It is mutually agreed between the representatives of the claimants and Senior Officials of SCCL, LAO for enjoyment survey of Ac.489.04 gts of Kommepalli Village with reference to individual extent based on title deeds and it is also agreed for survey with reference to structures, bore wells, trees with the help of Irrigation Department, Divisional Forest Officer concerned and also to conduct Gramasabha of Kommepalli village on 14-06-2015 in the presence of the District Judge-cum-Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Khammam, District Revenue Authorities. It is agreed to report compliance to the District Legal Services Authority, Khammam, Telangana State Legal Services Authority and High Court Legal Services Committee within 20 days enabling the District Legal Services Authority, Khammam to organize Lok Adalat for resolution of dispute and passing awards."Page 8 of 43
UBJ & AVRJ WP No.21315 of 2017 The minutes of the meeting were communicated for taking further necessary steps. As a result, enjoyment survey was conducted whereafter, Tahsildar, Sathupalli Mandal submitted the enjoyment survey report, Grama Sabhas were organized by the District Legal Services Authority (for short 'DLSA'), Khammam as resolved in the coordination meeting. Every time wide publicity was given in the village by way of 'TOM TOM' and through print media. The petitioners also participated in all these meetings. The petitioners and their counsel have knowledge about passing of awards, they had participated in almost all meetings and Lok Adalats and never opposed passing of the awards in question. Though initially the petitioners 1 to 6 had claimed Ac.125.33 guntas of land, they thereafter filed additional claim statement restricting their claim to Ac.44.32 guntas and requested the Lok Adalat Bench to pass awards to that extent. However, the petitioners have failed to produce relevant documents showing their right over the said lands. The petitioners may claim compensation for the said land by adducing evidence before regular Court, while determining Page 9 of 43 UBJ & AVRJ WP No.21315 of 2017 ownership in the remaining land of Ac.121.00 ½ gutnas in Survey Nos.111 to 122. Thus, the awards were passed in favour of those claimants who had produced relevant documents and whose names were mentioned in the enjoyment survey conducted by the Tahsildar, Sathupalli Mandal, as per the resolution of the coordination meeting held at High Court on 30.05.2015.
6. The petitioners have filed a reply to the counter of respondents 1 & 2 alleging that the respondents had filed rival claim statements in respect of petitioners' land of Ac.125.33 guntas in Survey Nos.111, 115 and 117 to 122 and Ac.7.00, Ac.1.00 and Ac.2.35 guntas respectively in Survey Nos.111/A, 114/A/1 and 115/A belonging to petitioner Nos.7 to 9. They have mainly relied upon the lettter Dis.No.7180, dated 28.11.2017 of the Principal District Judge, Khammam stating that since the awards does not bear the signatures of the notified persons in the notifications issued under Sections 14 (1) and 6 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act and such awards are not in accordance with Legal Services Authorities Act and NALSA Page 10 of 43 UBJ & AVRJ WP No.21315 of 2017 Regulations. The petitioners have also filed abstract of LAOP No.619 of 2014 from 21.03.2016 to 02.08.2016 which shows that out of total land of Ac.489.04 guntas acquired, awards were passed in respect of Ac.363.11 ½ guntas and a land of Ac.125.32½ guntas remained for deciding title by the regular Court. The petitioners have also filed copy of such letter of District Judge, Khammam, and notifications under Section 4 (1) of Kommepalli village. It is also stated that the District Judge having addressed such letter dated 28.11.2007 is estopped from filing counter in support of the awards passed by the Lok Adalat.
7. The main averments of the counter of 4th respondent- Singareni Collieries Company Limited are that an extent of Ac.489.04 guntas of land was acquired for the benefit of Singareni Collieries Company Limited and the matter was referred under Sections 30 and 31 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Thereafter, different writ petitions were filed to quash the award and all the writ petitions were referred to the HCLSC for settlement before Lok Adalat. During coordination meeting dated 30.05.2015, it was agreed Page 11 of 43 UBJ & AVRJ WP No.21315 of 2017 among all the parties to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.10,95,000/- per acre towards compensation, and accordignly the 4th respondent had deposited an amount of Rs.37,17,93,733/- before the Principal District Judge, Khammam, on 21.03.2016. The petitioners and their counsel also participated in the Lok Adalat proceedings and they did not oppose passing of any award. The subject 16 awards were passed by the Lok Adalat Bench as per the enjoyment survey and title deeds in respect of Ac.33.05 guntas only. The said awards are legal, cannot be cancelled or quashed, writ petition is not maintainable and prayed for dismissal.
8. The respondent Nos.5 to 12, 14 and 16 to 19 have filed detailed counter and additional counter. The main averments of the counter and additional counter are that the writ petition filed challenging the awards passed in favour of respondents is not maintainable. The petitioners have no locus standi; awards are passed only in respect of the respective extents of lands of respondents 5 to 20 based on enjoyment survey and title deeds, there is no Page 12 of 43 UBJ & AVRJ WP No.21315 of 2017 conflict of interest; there is no cause of action for filing the present writ petition, as such the awards passed are sustainable; did not suffer from any infirmities and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. These awards were passed after undertaking a lot of exercise at the State, District and Village level by the Legal Services Authorities wherein the petitioners have also participated all through, made their own claims independently and never disputed the claim of respondents 5 to 20, specially with reference to the extent and survey numbers except stating that the authorities had recorded the names of wrongful persons. It is not the case of the petitioners that their land is included in particular Lok Adalat Award and there is conflict of interest. The petitioners never denied the claims made by these respondents in respect of their particular lands. The respondents had produced relevant documents and on verification of the same with reference to enjoyment survey as no other person has claimed the said lands, the awards were passed. These respondents are suffering since long time having lost their possession over their respective lands which were taken over by Singareni Collieries Page 13 of 43 UBJ & AVRJ WP No.21315 of 2017 Company Limited. They were also deprived of compensation in view of this writ petition. They have filed copies of their title deeds and copies of awards passed in their favour, stating that after thorough scrutiny of title deeds and enjoyment survey, the Lok Adalat had passed awards and that there are no rival claims in respect of their land covered by the 16 awards in question. Accordingly, statement showing the particulars of transactions, documents in respect of each award passed in favour of respondents 5 to 20 is submitted and the same is extracted below for better appreciation:
Statement showing particulars of transactions, documents etc. Sl. Name of the Extent Sy.No. Date of Nature of Name of Vendor No. Respondent Ac.gts. Kommepalli Document Document 1 R-5 2-00 115/A/2 08.06.2005 Sale Deed Udanthaneni Veeraiah, Tutari Udaylaxmi S/o.Basavaiah 2 R-6 2-00 119/E 01.06.1977 Sale Deed Narukulla Chennaiah Peddireddy and Ganta Savithri to Maheswara Rao Peddireddy Laxmi (Died) (Mother of R-6, 10, 11 Lr.Petition and 12) pending Singapogu Samyelu, S/o.Rajaiah and his sons Babu Rao, Yakub, Kireeti Rao, Singapugu 15.07.1977 Sale Deed Pullaiah, S/o.Rajaiah, Singapugu Venkatesu, S/o.Raghavaiah and Narukulla Chennaiah, S/o,.Ramaiah.
Pattadar Pass Book Title Deed Rythu Pass Book of Peddireddy Page 14 of 43 UBJ & AVRJ WP No.21315 of 2017 Laxmi 3 R-7 2-00 117/A/E/AA 08.10.2004 Sale Deed Yerra Venkateswara Peddireddy Hari Rao Babu Pattadar Pass Book Title Deed 4 R-8 3-00 117/A/AA 13.10.1971 Sale Deed Mekala Rathaiah Kankati Varahalu 2-27 121/E 12.08.1977 Prossessory Mekala Rathaiah Agreement of 29.03.1994 sale Singapogu Samyelu to Kankati Sathyam 13(b) Certificate of Makala Rathaiah Title Deed 5 R-9 2-00 118/A/LUU 08.12.2004 Sale Deed Mattaparthi Bonthu Rama Sathyanarayana and Rao 0-30 118/EE/AA Pattadar Pass Mamillapalli Book Raghavaiah 6 R-10 2-00 118/U/A 01.06.1977 Sale Deed Narukulla Chennaiah Peddireddy and Ganta Savithri to Purushothama Peddireddy Laxmi Rao (Mother of R-6, 10, 11 and 12) Singapogu Samyelu, S/o.Rajaiah and his 15.07.1977 Sale Deed sons Babu Rao, Yakub, Kireeti Rao, Singapugu Pullaiah, S/o.Rajaiah, Singapugu Venkatesu, S/o.Raghavaiah and Narukulla Chennaiah, S/o,.Ramaiah to Peddireddy Laxmi (Mother of R-6, 10, 11 and 12) Pattadar Pass Book Title Deed Rythuvari Pass Book oif Peddireddy Laxmi 7 R-11 2-00 118/U 01.06.1977 Sale Deed Narukulla Chennaiah Peddireddy Rama and Ganta Savithri to Krishna Rao Peddireddy Laxmi (Mother of R-6, 10, 11 and 12) Singapogu Samyelu, S/o.Rajaiah and his Page 15 of 43 UBJ & AVRJ WP No.21315 of 2017 15.07.1977 Sale Deed sons Babu Rao, Yakub, Kireeti Rao, Singapugu Pullaiah, S/o.Rajaiah, Singapugu Venkatesu, S/o.Raghavaiah and Narukulla Chennaiah, S/o,.Ramaiah to Peddireddy Laxmi (Mother of R-6, 10, 11 and 12) Pattadar Pass Book Title Deed Rythuvari Pass Book of Peddireddy Laxmi 8 R-12 2-00 119/E 01.06.1977 Sale Deed Narukulla Chennaiah Jalligampala and Ganta Savithri to Venkata Ramana Peddireddy Laxmi (Mother of R-6, 10, 11 and 12) Singapogu Samyelu, S/o.Rajaiah and his 15.07.1977 Sale Deed sons Babu Rao, Yakub, Kireeti Rao, Singapugu Pullaiah, S/o.Rajaiah, Singapugu Venkatesu, S/o.Raghavaiah and Narukulla Chennaiah, S/o,.Ramaiah to Peddireddy Laxmi (Mother of R-6, 10, 11 Pattadar Pass and 12) Book Title Deed Rythuvari Pass Book of Peddireddy Laxmi 9 R-16 2-00 109/AA Title Deed Alwala Hymavathi Bingi Gandhi Babu 10 R-17 0-30 117/UU 21.12.1969 Possessory Alwala Vasudeva Rao Udathaneni Rama agreement of to Udathaneni Satyam Rao sale (Father of Claimant Pattadar Pass No.17) Book and Title Deed of Udathaneni Sathyam 11 R-18 0-20 117/UU 21.12.1969 Possessory Alwala Vasudeva Rao Sakhamudi agreement of to Udathaneni Satyam Vijaya Laxmi sale (Father of Claimant No.18) 12 R-19 1-20 117/AA/EE Pattadar Pass It is his ancestral Veldi Pitchaiah Book property Page 16 of 43 UBJ & AVRJ WP No.21315 of 2017 Title Deed 13 R-20 3-07 115/EE Pattadar Pass 1. Bethini Pullaiah, Manneni 3-00 116/E Book S/o.Venkaiaha. Anasurya 2. Singapogu Venkatesu, S/o.Raghavulu.
3. Morampudi Mahalaxmi, W/o.Adinarayana.
4. Morampudi
Nageswara Rao,
S/o.Adinarayana.
5. Morampudi Ravi,
S/o.Adinarayana.
6. Morampudi
Laxminarayana,
S/o.Subbaiah.
7. Morampudi Prasada
Rao,
S/o.Laxminarayana
and
8. Morampudi Subba
Rao,
S/o.Laxminarayana.
9. The petitioners have filed reply to the counter of respondent Nos.5 to 12, 14 and 16 to 19 stating that the writ petitioners 1 to 6 have filed claim statements on 11.03.2016 before the civil Court claiming compensation for Ac.125.33 guntas out of Survey Nos.111, 115 and 117 to 122 of Kommepalli Village, whereas petitioners 7 to 9 have filed their claim statement on 07.04.2016 in respect of land admeasuring Ac.7.00 guntas, Ac.1.00 guntas and Ac.2.35 guntas respectively covered by Survey Nos.111/A, 114/A/1 and 115/A of Kommepalli Village. The respondents have also filed claim statement before the District Court claiming compensation for the lands covered Page 17 of 43 UBJ & AVRJ WP No.21315 of 2017 by Survey Nos.115, 117/A and 118/A, 119, 121, 122 and 111, which shows that there is serious dispute and rival claims between the writ petitioners; as a result the lands of the petitioners are subjected to the illegal awards. The impugned awards are vitiated by serious illegalities and irregularities and unless the claim of the petitioners is adjudicated, the respondents are not entitled to receive the compensation awarded as per the impugned Lok Adalat awards.
10. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners seeks to submit that the petitioners are absolute owners of the disputed land, a single award was passed in respect of entire extent of Ac.489.04 guntas showing all the names; Singareni Collieries Company Limited has deposited the awarded amount, Lok Adalat Bench without following the mandatory NALSA Regulations and the provisions of Legal Services Authorities Act, without recording the compromise among all the parties to LAOP No.619 of 2014 has passed the impugned awards; the awards passed in favour of respondents 5 to 20 are against the spirit of Section 19 (5) read with Section 20 (5) Page 18 of 43 UBJ & AVRJ WP No.21315 of 2017 of Legal Services Authorities Act, and liable to be set aside; in fact, as per the entries in Khasra Pahani from 1954 to 2010, the names of claim petitioners or their predecessors- in-title are recorded. The writ petitioners have also filed their claim statements before the District Court, some of the respondents have filed rival claim in respect of the same land. There is a serious dispute of title which requires adjudication by the District Court, but the Legal Services Authority has passed awards in favour of respondents 5 to 20 based only on enjoyment survey which is unknown to law. These awards are not passed on consensus or compromise between the parties and they are liable to be set aside. The learned senior counsel also submitted a brief note reiterating the above submissions and relied on the principles laid in the following decisions:
i) Estate Officer v. Colonel H.V. Mankotia (Retired)1;
ii) Durgam Rayalingu v. ChairmanMandal legal Services Committee, Adilabad District and others2; and 1 2021 (6) ALD 93 (SC) 2 2018 (5) ALD 231 (DB) Page 19 of 43 UBJ & AVRJ WP No.21315 of 2017
iii) Nallala Anjavva and another v. Lok Adalat Bench at Sircilla, Rajanna Sircilla District and others3.
11. Per contra, Sri J. Anil Kumar, learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2 seeks to submit that pursuant to the coordination meeting dated 30.05.2015 held in the High Court in the presence of Executive Chairman, TSLSA, there was an understanding among the parties and the minutes of the meeting were communicated to all the stakeholders, enjoyment survey was held, the DLSA had convened Gramasabhas several times by giving wide publicity, petitioners had also participated along with their counsel and they had knowledge of passing of the impugned awards. Though the petitioners 1 to 6 initially claimed Ac.125.33 guntas of land, they had restricted their claim to the extent of Ac.44.32 guntas only and they may claim compensation in respect of such land by adducing evidence before the regular court while determining the ownership of remaining extent of Ac.121.00½ guntas, out 3 2018 (1) ALD 424 (DB) Page 20 of 43 UBJ & AVRJ WP No.21315 of 2017 of Survey Nos.111 to 122. There is no illegality or irregularity in the awards passed. He further submitted that the petitioners are the consenting parties to the awards, though they have not signed on the same. In fact, the petitioners and other claimants have filed batch of Writ Petition Nos.13942 and 34299 of 2013, 3314, 3730, 3777, 5215, 5963, 5576 and 28667 of 2014 and on considering the submissions made before this Court as to settlement before Lok Adalat all these writ petitions were disposed of as "settled before Lok Adalat" enabling the petitioners to receive the compensation as per the awards. Further submitted that the petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 6 are the petitioners in WP No.5963 of 2014 stated above and they are estopped from challenging the impugned awards.
12. The learned standing counsel for respondent No.4 has adopted the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondents 1 & 2.
13. Ms. B. Rachana Reddy, learned counsel representing respondents 5 to 19 seeks to submit that out of total extent of Ac.489.04 guntas, compensation was disbursed through Page 21 of 43 UBJ & AVRJ WP No.21315 of 2017 Lok Adalat for more than 360 acres and the dispute is only pending in respect of Ac.125.33 guntas out of which the impguned awards are passed in respect of only Ac.35.00 guntas, whereas the writ petitioners initially made their claim in respect of 125 acres of the land in different Survey Nos.111, 115 and 117 to 122 of Kommepalli village, but as per their additional claim statement, they have restricted their claim for compensation only to an extent of Ac.44.32 guntas. While referring to the additional claim statement of the petitioners, it is submitted that the petitioners have stated that the compensation may be paid for the remaining land excluding the said land of Ac.44.32 guntas, out of Ac.125.33 guntas to the other claimants who are making such claim.
13.1. It is further submitted that the said awards in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 20 were passed on the basis of enjoyment survey after verification of title deeds, pattadar pass books which are filed along with the additional counter and that these awards passed in favour of Page 22 of 43 UBJ & AVRJ WP No.21315 of 2017 respondents 5 to 20 are not coming in the way of the claim made by the writ petitioners in any way. She further argued that in similar circumstances, when the Principal District Judge, Khammam has failed to pay the compensation amount in spite of passing of the awards, a batch of Writ Petitions in WP Nos.13976, 13989, 13991, 13995, 14029, 14051, 14059, 14083, 14087, 14090, 14091, 14095, 14100, 14012, 14105, 14112, 14115 and 14123 of 2018 were filed and a Divison Bench of this Court has allowed all these writ petitions directing the Principal District Judge, Khammam for disbursement of the amounts together with interest to the writ petitioners as per the awards upon proper identification, on or before 30.06.2018 and accordingly, in Lok Adalat Award Nos.372, 373, 378, 379, 382, 383, 385, 388, 391, 395, 396, 390, 487, 488, 687, 397, 415, 460 and 436 of 2016 compensation is paid as per the orders dated 30.04.2018 of this Court in the abvoe batch of writ petitions and also relied upon the said orders.
Page 23 of 43
UBJ & AVRJ WP No.21315 of 2017
14. On a careful consideration of the rival contentions and materials available on record, the admitted or undisputed facts of the case are that a notification under Section 4 (1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued for acquiring an extent of Ac.489.04 guntas of Kommepalli village for the benefit of Singareni Collieries Company Limited. A common award was passed and the amount was deposited before the District Court, Khammam, vide LAOP No.619 of 2014. At this stage, batch of Writ Petition Nos. 13942 and 34299 of 2013, 3314, 3730, 3777, 5215, 5963, 5576 and 28667 of 2014 were filed before the High Court challenging the said common award with the prayer to set aside the award reference proceedings dated 30.12.2013. All the above batch of writ petitions were referred to HCLSC for settlement and a coordination meeting was held in the presence of Executive Chairman, TSLSA on 30.05.2015 in the High Court premises with all the stakeholders relating to the Kommepalli land acquisition, wherein it was resolved as under:
"It is mutually agreed between the representatives of the claimants and Senior Officials of SCCL, LAO for Page 24 of 43 UBJ & AVRJ WP No.21315 of 2017 enjoyment survey of Ac.489.04 gts of Kommepalli Village with reference to individual extent based on title deeds and it is also agreed for survey with reference to structures, bore wells, trees with the help of Irrigation Department, Divisional Forest Officer concerned and also to conduct Gramasabha of Kommepalli village on 14-06-2015 in the presence of the District Judge-cum-Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Khammam, District Revenue Authorities. It is agreed to report compliance to the District Legal Services Authority, Khammam, Telangana State Legal Services Authority and High Court Legal Services Committee within 20 days enabling the District Legal Services Authority, Khammam to organize Lok Adalat for resolution of dispute and passing awards."
15. It is also not in dispute that the above resolution was communicated to the concerned authorities by the HCLSC and it was acted upon as agreed to. Wide publicity was given in the village by way of 'TOM TOM' and through print media. All the parties including the writ petitioners were aware of the proceedings of the Lok Adalat. But the writ petitioners have suppressed the resolutions of said coordination meeting dated 30.05.2015 and the settlement Page 25 of 43 UBJ & AVRJ WP No.21315 of 2017 arrived at as well as awards passed as per enjoyment survey and verification of title deeds etc.
16. It is also an admitted fact that though the writ petitioners have claimed initially Ac.125.33 guntas of land, in their additional claim statement, they restricted their claim to the extent of Ac.44.32 guntas subject to production of the relevant records. As per their additional claim statement, they have decided to restrict their claim for compensation only to an extent of Ac.36.42 guntas, out of total extent of Ac.44.32 guntas stating that in the present acquisition proceedings only Ac.40.32 guntas is acquired, out of total extent of Ac.44.32 guntas and as per the compromise, the claimant Nos.1 to 6 are restricting their claim for compensation for Ac.36.32 guntas, the compensation may be paid to the petitioners 7 to 9 for the remaining Ac.4.10 guntas, but no such claim statement of petitioner Nos.7 to 9 is filed.
17. Thus, as per the claim statement, additional claim statement of the petitioners and the counter filed by respondents 1 and 2, it is clearly established that though Page 26 of 43 UBJ & AVRJ WP No.21315 of 2017 initially the petitioners claimed Ac.125.33 guntas in different Survey Numbers i.e., Sy.Nos.111, 115 and 117 to 120 of Kommepalli village, they had restricted their claim only to the extent of Ac.36.42 guntas, out of total extent of Ac.44.32 guntas of which only Ac.40.32 guntas was acquired through the present acquisition proceedings and Ac.4.00 guntas of Tank portion was not acquired. As per the compromise, as mentioned in the additional claim statement of the petitiner No.1, the writ petitioners 1 to 6 herein are restricting their claim for compensation to the extent of Ac.36.32 guntas only leaving Ac.4.10 guntas to the heirs of Alawala Narasimha Rao i.e., writ petitioners 7 to 9. However, the writ petitioners have not filed any supporting documents, such as, title deeds, pattadar passbooks, other revenue records in support of their claims either for Ac.125.33 guntas or for Ac.44.32 guntas or 40.32 guntas or 36.42 guntas as mentioned in their claim statements stated above, whereas the respondent Nos.5 to 20 have filed copies of their title deeds, pattadar passbooks, details of enjoyment survey in respect of their Page 27 of 43 UBJ & AVRJ WP No.21315 of 2017 claim for the lands and compensation amount covered by 16 impugned awards.
18. Be it stated that pursuant to the said claim statements and the compromise recorded between the parties as stated above, the batch of WP Nos.13942 and 34299 of 2013, 3314, 3730, 3777, 5215, 5963, 5576 and 28667 of 2014 were disposed of on 07.04.2016 as 'settled before Lok Adalat', through a common order extracted as below:
"HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE Writ Petition Nos.13942 and 34299 of 2013; 3314, 3730, 3777, 5215, 5963, 5576 and 28667 of 2014 COMMON ORDER:
Learned counsel for the petitioners, these petitions, state that their claims for compensation for the lands acquired by the Singareni Collieries Company Limited have already been settled and in view of pendency of these writ petitons, the acquiring body could not issue cheques in favour of the petitioners. In view thereof, they pray for disposal of these writ petiitons as settled in the Lok Adalat.
The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of as settled in Lok Adalat. Interim orders, if any, stand disposed.
Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications shall also stand closed."Page 28 of 43
UBJ & AVRJ WP No.21315 of 2017
19. It is also evident from the reply of the petitioners to the counter filed by the respondents 1 and 2 that for a total extent of 363.11 ½ guntas, awards were passed from 21.03.2016 to 02.08.2016 settling for a total amount of Rs.46,27,13,994/-, the total extent remained for deciding the title by regular Court is Ac.125.32½ guntas, out of which, the land of 121.00½ guntas is part of Survey Nos.111 to 122 and the remaining land of Ac.4.32 guntas is part of Survey Nos.7, 14, 48 to 55, 106 to 110, 126 to 129 and 140.
20. Further, when the then learned Principal District Judge, Khammam, had raised doubts and declined to pay the amount awarded to the claimants, some of the claimants in LAOP No.619 of 2014 in whose favour Lok Adalat awards were passed, filed Writ Petition Nos.13976, 13989, 13991, 13995, 14029, 14051, 14059, 14083, 14087, 14090, 14091, 14095, 14100, 14012, 14105, 14112, 14115 and 14123 of 2018. All these writ petitions were filed questioning the inaction on the part of the then Principal District Judge, Khammam in disbursing the compensation amount payable in terms of Lok Adalat Page 29 of 43 UBJ & AVRJ WP No.21315 of 2017 Award. A Division Bench of this Court while dealing with these writ petitions and the letter addressed by the then Principal District Judge directed him to disburse the amount together with interest as per the awards on proper identification of the parties concerned. He was further directed to make the disbursement on or before 30.06.2018 and report compliance on administrative side.
21. The relevant portion in paras 5 to 11 of the said common order dated 30.04.2018 in Writ Petition Nos.13976 of 2018 and batch cases in LAOP No.619 of 2014 passed by a Division Bench of this Court is extracted as under for better appreciation of the facts:
"5. During the pendency of those references, a settlement was also reached between some of the land owners and Singareni Collieries Company Limited with regard to the quantum of compensation. Hence, the General Manager (Estates), Singareni Collieries Company Limited sent a letter to this Court, where writ petitions challenging the acquisition were pending, informing this Court about the settlement. But the amount of compensation agreed to by the beneficiaries could not be disbursed in view of the rival claims.Page 30 of 43
UBJ & AVRJ WP No.21315 of 2017
6. Therefore, the matter was referred to the High Court Legal Services Committee. Before the High Court Legal Services Committee, the claimants as well as the beneficiary Company agreed to have a survey of the acquired lands conducted with the help of the revenue officials, in order to find out the persons in possession and enjoyment of individual extents of land. It was also agreed that Grama Sabha will be conducted in the presence of the District Judge cum Chairman of the District Legal Services Authority and the revenue officials.
7. Accordingly a survey was conducted in both the villages and Grama Sabhas were also conducted. On the basis of the reports submitted thereafter, Lok Adalats were conducted by the District Legal Services Authority. The Lok Adalat passed about 15 awards pertaining to Lankapally Village and 115 awards pertaining to Kommepally Village. But the Principal District and Sessions Judge did not allow disbursement of the compensation, as per the Lok Adalat Awards, on the ground that the awards did not contain the signatures of all the rival claimants. Therefore, the land owners, unable to reap the benefit of the awards, have come up with the above writ petitions.
8. Technically the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Khammam may be right in entertaining a doubt whether disbursement could be Page 31 of 43 UBJ & AVRJ WP No.21315 of 2017 made on the basis of Lok Adalat awards that do not contain the signatures of all the claimants. But none of the parties, who are aggrieved by the awards of the Lok Adalat, have so far come to the Court either challenging the Lok Adalat awards or seeking payment by ignoring the Lok Adalat awards.
9. The litigation on hand is very peculiar in the sense that at the instance of the High Court Legal Services Committee, a huge survey was conducted involving the officials in the revenue department, for finding out the persons in possession and enjoyment of individual extents of land, at the appropriate time when possession was taken. After the completion of this survey Gram Sabhas were conducted and final determination of the persons and the extents of land in their possession were found out. It is only thereafter, that the matter went before the Lok Adalats organized by the District Legal Services Authority.
10. In such circumstances, the awards passed by the Lok Adalats, have to be treated as a settlement reached in a class action suit. In a class action suit, all parties may not participate directly in the proceedings. In cases of this nature, the Lok Adalat awards are to be treated as those passed in proceedings similar to an action initiated under Order I Rule 8 of C.P.C. The attempt made by the Lok Adalat should be seen as a compromise reached in a class action, whose foundations are upon public policy. Page 32 of 43
UBJ & AVRJ WP No.21315 of 2017
11. Therefore, so long as no rival claimant has come up with any challenge to the Lok Adalat award, the Lok Adalat awards are binding. It is fundamental that even a decree, unless set aside, is binding and executable. Today the executability of the Lok Adalat award, in the absence of a challenge, cannot be doubted. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to have compensation amount disbursed to them as per the Lok Adalat award."
22. Before reverting to the facts of the present case, it may be stated that in the above batch of writ petitions some of the claimants in LAOP No.619 of 2014 in whose favour Lok Adalat Awards were passed pursuant to the coordination meeting dated 30.05.2015 had questioned the inaction of the then learned Principal District Judge, Khammam in releasing the compensation and accordingly all those batch of writ petitions were allowed directing the disbursement of compensation amount. Be it stated that the very same Lok Adalat Bench had passed all these awards Nos.674, 673, 670, 679, 658, 671, 675, 672, 685, 454, 452, 455, 657, 661, 659 and 680 of 2016 in LAOP No.619 of 2014 after conducting enjoyment survey, pursuant to the resolution of coordination meeting dated Page 33 of 43 UBJ & AVRJ WP No.21315 of 2017 30.05.2015. But the petitioners have challenged the said awards on the ground that they are not passed as per the terms of the compromise and that there are rival claims in respect of the said land.
23. It may be apposite to mention that in all these awards, it is consistently observed, except a change in the name of Advocate and Estate Officer in Award Nos.685 and 452 of 2016, as under:
"Thereafter, several sittings were held among all stakeholders and gramasabhas were conducted. Aspirations of all stakeholders were fully negotiated with and a settlement was arrived at. In the presence of land loosers/claimants and their advocate, Sri M. Ajay Kumar and the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Khammam and the Government Pleader Sri Katammeni Ramesh representing the State and in the presence of Smt. K. Swapna, Estates Oficer, SCCL/Kothagudem Area representing Singareni Collieries Company Limited, which is the beneficiary of acquisition of land, all the factual issues and legal issues have been settled. All the parties having agreed before us, filed terms of that settlement requesting this authority for an award in terms of that settlement. Accordingly, this Lok Adalat bench passed the following Award."Page 34 of 43
UBJ & AVRJ WP No.21315 of 2017
24. The above contents of the awards would show the exercise and efforts made by the Lok Adalat Bench, presence of the parties, consensus arrived amongst them pursuant to the coordination meeting dated 30.05.2015 at the instance of TSLSA and reference of the writ petitioners to the Lok Adalat for settlement.
25. In the present case, the petitioners have challenged the awards as illegal, irregular and against the spirit of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and NALSA Regulations in view of the fact that each Lok Adalat award does not contain the signatures of all the claimants whose names are found in LAOP No.619 of 2014 and relied on the following judgments.
26. In Estate Officer's case (1st supra), the Apex Court while interpreting Sections 19 (5) and 20 (3) and (5) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 held that Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to decide the matter on merits and once it is found that compromise or settlement was not arrived or could not be arrived between the parties, Lok Adalat has Page 35 of 43 UBJ & AVRJ WP No.21315 of 2017 to return the case to the Court form which the reference has been received for disposal in accordance with law.
27. Similar principle is laid in Durgam Rayalingu's case (2nd supra) holding that Lok Adalat has no power of adjudication on merits in the absence of compromise or settlement.
28. In Nallala Anjavva's case (3rd supra), a Division Bench of this Court while dealing with the Regulation 39 (2) of the A.P. State Legal Services Authority Regulations 1999 held that the parties to the dispute shall be required to affix their signatures or thumb impressions on the award of Lok Adalat and if few parties to the dispute are allowed to file compromise petition to the exclusion of other parties, that would give raise to serious complications leading to litigation taking different turns and accordingly held that the award passed by Lok Adalat without the signatures of all the parties to the original dispute is not sustainable and the same was set aside. Page 36 of 43
UBJ & AVRJ WP No.21315 of 2017
29. Undoubtedly, Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 do not envisage an appeal or revision against the award made by Lok Adalat. Only remedy available to the aggrieved party is to challenge the said award by way of writ petititon under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution of India, that too on very limited grounds.
30. In State of Punjab and another v. Jalour Singh and others4 a three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
"12. It is true that where an award is made by the Lok Adalat in terms of a settlemnet arrived at between the parties (which is duly signed by parties and annexed to the award of the Lok Adalat), it becomes final and binding on the parties to the settlement and beocmes executable as if it is a decree of a civil court, and no appeal lies against it to any court. If any party wants to challenge such an award based on settlement, it can be done only by filing a petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution, that too on very limited grounds. But where no compromise or settlement is signed by the parties and the order of the Lok Adalat does not refer to any settlement, but directs the respondent to either make payment if it agrees to 4 (2008) 2 SCC 660 Page 37 of 43 UBJ & AVRJ WP No.21315 of 2017 the order, or approach the High Court for disposal of appeal on merits, if it does not agree, is not an award of the Lok Adalat. The question of challenging such an order is a petition under Article 227 does not arise. As already noticed, in such a situation, the High Court ought to have heard and disposed of the appeal on merits."
31. Considering the above well settled legal position for challenge of Lok Adalat award and also the law laid in the decisions relied by the petitioners and respondent Nos.5 to 19, let us examine the facts of the case on hand. The petitioners are not the parties to the Lok Adalat awards under challenge, their claim is now restricted to only Ac.40.32 guntas, out of Ac.125.32½ guntas left over land out of total acquired land of Ac.489.04 guntas of Kommepalli village. As per their additional claim statement, the petitioners have made it clear that leaving the said extent of Ac.40.32 guntas out of Ac.125.32½ guntas, compensation may be paid to other claimants. In fact, the petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 6 have filed WP No.5963 of 2014 and as per their request only in veiw of representation that the matter was settled before the Lok Page 38 of 43 UBJ & AVRJ WP No.21315 of 2017 Adalat, the said writ petition along with other batch writ petitions were disposed of, through a common order dated 07.04.2016. Thereafter, Lok Adalat awards were passed in respect of Ac.363.11½ guntas, out of Ac.489.04 guntas leaving only Ac.125.32½ guntas. The land covered by all the 16 awards under challenge is only about Ac.35.00 guntas and these awards were passed by Lok Adalat with the consent of the parties, pursuant to coordination meeting minutes dated 30.05.2015 and as per enjoyment survey and verification of title etc. The writ petitioners though stated about filing of Khasra Pahani and Pahani up to the year 2010 did not choose to file the same, they have also not filed any supporting documents such as title deeds, pattadar passbooks to establish their title, enjoyment over any extent either for Ac.125.32½ guntas or for Ac.40.32 guntas for Ac.36.32 guntas. Whereas respondents 5 to 20 have filed all the relevant documents along with their counter. Be it stated that even after payment of compensation in respect of the land covered by all these 16 awards under challenge, there is land of about Ac.90.00 guntas available, whereas claim of the writ Page 39 of 43 UBJ & AVRJ WP No.21315 of 2017 petitioner Nos.1 to 6 is only for Ac.36.32 guntas and claim of writ petitioners 7 to 9 is only Ac.4.10 guntas.
32. In the same LAOP No.619 of 2014 when a batch of writ petitions were filed in WP No.13976 of 2018 and 17 others, a Division Bench of this Court as indicated supra held that as long as none of the parties aggrieved by the awards, have challenged the said awards, they are binding and the amount has to be disbursed in terms of the awards to the awardees. It was further held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the awards passed by the Lok Adalat have to be treated as settlement reached in a class action suit wherein all parties may not participate directly in the proceedings and in cases of this nature, Lok Adalat Awards are to be treated as those passed in proceedings similar to an action initiated under Order-I Rule-8 of CPC and the attempt made by Lok Adalat should be seen as a compromise reached in a class action, whose foundations are upon public policy.
33. We are in complete agreement with the view of the Divison Bench and hold that each award passed in this Page 40 of 43 UBJ & AVRJ WP No.21315 of 2017 particular case in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances need not to contain the signatures of all the parties to LAOP No.914 of 2014. Any other interpretation would not only frustrate the entire exercise made by the Legal Services Institutions right from State Legal Services Authority to the District Legal Services Authority, but also cause irreprable damage to the genuine claimants and other stake holders, who acted upon the resolutions of the coordination meeting dated 30.05.2015 and entered into Lok Adalat awards with broad consensus, settlement pursuant to enjoyment survey, verification of title deeds etc.
34. Therefore, for all the reasons stated above in the case on hand, Lok Adalat awards were only passed pursuant to the consensus or compromise, in view of coordination meeting dated 30.05.2015 and the writ petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 6 herein who filed WP No.5963 of 2014 have also made representation before this Court about settlement before Lok Adalat, and accordingly all those batch of writ petitons were disposed of through a common order dated Page 41 of 43 UBJ & AVRJ WP No.21315 of 2017 07.04.2016, thereafter Lok Adalat awards were passed in respect of Ac.363.11½ guntas out of Ac.489.04 guntas, whreafter compensation was paid in terms of awards. Accordingly, it cannot be said that there was no consensus or compromise among the parties. No grounds are made out by the petitioners to set aside the Lok Adalat awards in question. On the other hand, as stated supra, the petitioners have suppressed the material facts, such as, coordination meeting held on 30.05.2015 at the instance of HCLSC in the presence of Executive Chairman, TSLSA, compromise arrived at and acted upon the resolutions of coordination meeting etc. The petitioners have also not filed any supporting documents in proof of their claim, right title either for Ac.125.32½ guntas or for Ac.44.32 guntas or 40.32 guntas or Ac.36.42 guntas. Whereas the respondents 5 to 20 in whose favour Lok Adalat awards in question are passed have filed relevant supporting documents, they are deprived of possesison of the land from the date of awards and also compensation awarded is not paid in view of the conduct of the writ petitioners. Thus, when the above facts are tested on the touchstone of Page 42 of 43 UBJ & AVRJ WP No.21315 of 2017 the principles laid in the case of State of Punjab (4th supra), the answer is in the negative, the petitioners have failed to make out any ground to set aside the Lok Adalat awards under challenge and they are accordingly sustained. The principles laid in decision Nos.1 to 3 cited supra are distinguishable on facts as stated above and not applicable to the case on hand.
35. Therefore, for all the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the writ petition and it deserves to be dismissed. However, the writ petitioners may pursue their remedy before the Principal District Judge, Khammam in LAOP No.619 of 2014 for the remaining extent of land Ac.125.33 guntas excluding the land of about Ac.35.00 guntas covered by the imugned Lok Adalat Awards bearing Nos.674, 673, 670, 679, 658, 671, 675, 672, 685, 454, 452, 657, 661, 659 and 680 of 2016 passed in LAOP No.619 of 2014.
36. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. Lok Adalat Award Nos.674, 673, 670, 679, 658, 671, 675, 672, 685, 454, 452, 455, 657, 661, 659 and 680 Page 43 of 43 UBJ & AVRJ WP No.21315 of 2017 of 2016 passed by the first respondent in LAOP No.619 of 2014 are sustained and the interim stay granted earlier stands vacated. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in the writ petition, shall stand closed.
____________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ______________________________ A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY, J Date: 17.08.2022 Isn