Sant Ram vs D.D.C.Faizabad
2021 Latest Caselaw 11124 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

									A.F.R.
 
Court No. - 20
 

 
Case :- CONSOLIDATION No. - 359 of 1998
 

 
Petitioner :- Sant Ram
 
Respondent :- D.D.C.Faizabad
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- S.K.Mehrotra,Balram Yadava,G.S.L. Verma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manzer Ali,Mayank Pandey,Shikha Sinha
 

 
Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari,J.

1. Heard Sri Balram Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. Krishna Singh, learned Standing Counsel for opposite party no. 1 and Ms. Shikha Sinha, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2/1.

2. The writ petition has been filed with the following main reliefs:-

"(a) issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 20.05.1998 vide annexure no. 6 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad holding the Lok Adalat at Kuchera Bazar in District Faizabad illegally modifying the chak of the petitioner;

(b) issue any other appropriate writ, direction or order as may seem to be expedient in the ends of justice."

3. By the order dated 16.07.1998, notices were issued to the opposite party no. 2 and it was provided that in the meantime, the operation of the order dated 20.05.1998 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad shall remain stayed and the possession of the petitioner over half of the plot no. 555/1 shall not be disturbed in pursuance of the said order.

4. By the order dated 08.09.2021, the learned Standing Counsel was directed to inform the Court on the basis of record as to whether (i) the revision was heard on 17.05.1998 in Lok Adalat; (ii)What happened on 17.05.1998; (iii) Whether 20.05.1998 was the date fixed in the revision and; (iv) if the petitioner was heard on 17.05.1998 and/or 20.05.1998.

5. Supplementary affidavit has been filed today in Court by the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of opposite party no. 1, copy of which has been served on the learned counsels for the petitioner as also for opposite party no. 2/1.

6. As copies of the orders dated 17.05.1998 & 20.05.1998 have been annexed with respect to which there is no dispute, any rejoinder affidavit is not called for nor has been asked for.

7. Sri Balram Yadav submits that the facts of the case are that one Hanuman Deen (opposite party no. 2), now deceased had filed an objection under Section 20 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short 'the Act, 1953') along with a prayer for condonation of delay in filing the objection. The objection was rejected by the Consolidation Officer by order dated 21.03.1998 (Annexure no. 4) against which he filed revision under Section 48 of the Act, 1953. In the said revision, a notice was issued on 16.05.1998 by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad for holding Lok Adalat on 17.05.1998. The notice dated 16.05.1998 could not be served on the petitioner as he was not present being posted at District Ganga Nagar in the State of Rajasthan. The Lok Adalat was held on 17.05.1998 in which the matter was heard by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on merits and the judgment was reserved for being pronounced on 20.05.1998, on which date the revision of the opposite party no. 2 was allowed.

8. Sri Balram Yadav submits that the order dated 20.05.1998 was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. His further submission is that in Lok Adalat, the matter can be decided only with the compromise or settlement between the parties and in the absence of any compromise or settlement arrived at by the petitioner with the opposite party, the Deputy Director of Consolidation exceeded its jurisdiction in deciding the revision on merits. His further submission is that if no settlement takes place in Lok Adalat then the matter should be sent to the court concerned, for decision. He has placed reliance on Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (in short 'the Act, 1987').

9. Ms. Shikha Sinha, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2/1 submits that after hearing the petitioner's counsel, the Deputy Director of Consolidation had passed the order dated 20.05.1998 on merits and in view thereof, the petitioner's contention that the notice was not served upon him and he was not heard, is no ground to challenge the order dated 20.05.1998. She further submits that the order does not suffer from any illegality and, therefore, it calls for no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. With respect to Section 20 of the Act, 1987, she submits that although sub-Section (1) provides for filing of joint application in the court or Tribunal where the matter is pending by the parties indicating their intention to compromise the matter or to arrive at a settlement, the matter shall be transferred to the Lok Adalat for arriving at a compromise or settlement, but in view of sub-Section (2) of Section 20 of the Act, 1987, the District Authority may on receipt of an application from any person that any dispute or matter pending for a compromise or settlement, needs to be determined by the Lok Adalat, refer such dispute or matter to the Lok Adalat for determination.

10. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.

11. The controversy involved in the writ petition mainly is as to whether the impugned order dated 20.05.1998 is an order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Lok Adalat held on 17.05.1998, and if the answer is in affirmative, whether the Deputy Director of Consolidation had jurisdiction to decide the revision on merits, which was a contested matter without there being any settlement or compromise between the parties.

12. From the facts on record, it is undisputed that the revision filed by the opposite party no. 2 was transferred to the Lok Adalat. Perusal of the notice issued on 02.05.1998 by the Deputy Director of Consolidation shows that the top of the notice mentions ''Lok Adalat at Kuchera Bazar' fixing 17.05.1998 in the Lok Adalat. The order-sheet dated 17.05.1998 of the revision, Annexure no. SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit filed by opposite party no. 1 also shows that on 17.05.1998, the revision was heard in Lok Adalat, Kuchera Bazar and 20.05.1998 was fixed for orders. The order-sheet dated 17.05.1998 reads as under:-

"आज यह पत्रावली लोक अदालत कैम्प कुचेरा में सुनवाई हेतु प्रस्तुत हुई I पक्षकारों के तर्कों को सुना गया I

अतः आदेश हुआ कि पत्रावली दिनांक 20.05.98 को आदेशार्थ प्रस्तुत हो I"

13. From the aforesaid, it is evident that the revision was heard in Lok Adalat on 17.05.1998 and 20.05.1998 was fixed for orders, on which date, the order under challenge was passed. The order dated 20.05.1998 was not passed on the day the Lok Adalat was held but as the matter was heard in Lok Adalat on 17.05.1998 and 20.05.1998 was fixed for orders, the order dated 20.05.1998 is in effect, an order passed in Lok Adalat inasmuch as a court, tribunal or quasi-judicial authority may after hearing the matter pass orders then and there or may fix a future date, for delivery or dictation of order or judgment. Therefore, the order dated 20.05.1998 cannot be considered, ignoring the order dated 17.05.1998 passed in Lok Adalat.

14. Section 20 of the Act, 1987 reads as under:-

"20. Cognizance of Cases by Lok Adalats

(1) Where in any case referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (5) of Section 19-(i)

(i) (a) The parties thereof agree or

(i) (b) One of the parties thereof makes an application to the court, for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such court is prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement or

(ii) The court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, the court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat: Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-clause (b) of clause ( i) or clause (ii) by such court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Authority or Committee organising the Lok Adalat under sub-section (1) of Section 19 may, on receipt of an application from any, one of the parties to any matter referred to in clause (ii) of sub-section (5) of Section 19 that such matter needs to be determined by a Lok Adalat, refer such matter to the Lok Adalat, for determination; Provided that no matter shall be referred to the Lok Adalat except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the other party.

(3) Where any case is referred to a Lok Adalat under sub-section (1) or where a reference has been made to it under sub-section (2), the Lok Adalat shall proceed to dispose of the case or matter and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties.

(4) Every Lok Adalat shall, while determining any reference before it under this Act, act with utmost expedition to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties and shall be guided by the principles of justice equity, fair play and other legal principles.

(5) Where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the ground that no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, the record of the case shall be returned by it to the court, from which the reference has been received under sub-section (1) for disposal in accordance with law.

(6) Where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the ground that no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, in a matter referred to in sub-section (2), that Lok Adalat shall advice the parties to seek remedy in a court.

(7) Where the record of the case is returned under sub-section (5) to the court, such court shall proceed to deal such reference under sub-section (1)."

15. A bare reading of Section 20 (3) of the Act, 1987, makes it clear that where any case is transferred to a Lok Adalat under sub-Section (1) or where a reference has been made to it under sub-Section (2), the Lok Adalat shall proceed to dispose of the suit, proceeding, dispute or matter and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties. As per sub-Section (4), every Lok Adalat shall while determining any proceedings before it under the Act, 1987, act with utmost expedition to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties and shall be guided by legal principles and the principles of justice, equity and fair play. Sub-Section (5) clearly mentions that where no award is made in the Lok Adalat on the ground that no compromise or settlement can be arrived at between the parties, it shall be open to the parties to the suit or proceeding transferred from the court or Tribunal under sub-Section (1) but continue such suit or proceeding before such court or Tribunal or if it is a dispute or matter referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-Section (2), any of the person may institute a proceeding in an appropriate court. Sub-section (6) also provides very clearly that where under sub-Section (5), the parties to a suit or proceeding intend to continue the proceeding in such suit or proceeding before the court or Tribunal from which it was transferred, such court or Tribunal shall proceed to deal with such suit or proceeding from the stage at which it was, before the suit or proceeding was transferred to the Lok Adalat.

16. Therefore, it is evident from the statutory provisions that in Lok Adalat, the proceedings can be decided only on compromise or settlement between the parties, if arrived, and if no award can be made by the Lok Adalat because no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, the matter shall be continued before the court or Tribunal from where it was transferred to the Lok Adalat, which court shall proceed to deal with the suit or proceeding from the stage where it was before that court before its transfer to the Lok Adalat.

17. In State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Mohinderjit Kaur [(2005) 2 SCC 743], in para 4, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"4. This Court held that the course adopted by the High Court was not proper. In State of Punjab and Ors. v. Phulan Rani and Anr. [(2004) 7 SCC 555] it was indicated as to which matters can be taken up by the Lok Adalat for disposal. It was inter alia held as follows:

"The matters which can be taken up by the Lok Adalat for disposal are enumerated in Section 20 of the Act which reads as follows:-

"Cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats:-

(1) Where in any case referred to in clause

(i) of sub-section (5) of section 19

(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or

(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the court, for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such court is prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or

(ii) the court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat,

The Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat.

Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-clause (b) of clause (i) or clause (ii) by such court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Authority or Committee organizing the Lok Adalat under sub-section (1) of Section 19 may, on receipt of an application from any one of the parties to any matter referred to in clause (ii) of sub-section (5) of section 19 that such matter needs to be determined by a Lok Adalat, refer such matter to the Lok Adalat, for determination:

Provided that no matter shall be referred to the Lok Adalat except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the other party.

(3) Where any case is referred to a Lok Adalat under sub-section (1) or where a reference has been made to it under sub-section (2), the Lok Adalat shall proceed to dispose of the case or matter and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties.

(4) Every Lok Adalat shall, while determining any reference before it under this Act, act with utmost expedition to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties and shall be guided by the principles of justice, equity, fair play and other legal principles.

(5) Where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the ground that no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, the record of the case shall be returned by it to the Court, from which the reference has been received under sub- section (1) for disposal in accordance with law.

(6) Where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the ground that no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, in a matter referred to in sub-section (2), that Lok Adalat shall advice the parties to seek remedy in a Court.

(7) Where the record of the case is returned under sub-section (5) to the Court, such Court shall proceed to deal with such case from the stage which was reached before such reference under sub-section (1)."

The specific language used in sub-section (3) of Section 20 makes it clear that the Lok Adalat can dispose of a matter by way of a compromise or settlement between the parties. Two crucial terms in sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 20 are "compromise" and "settlement". The former expression means settlement of differences by mutual concessions. It is an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims by reciprocal modification of demands. As per Termes de la Ley, "compromise is a mutual promise of two or more parties that are at controversy. As per Bouvier it is "an agreement between two or more persons, who, to avoid a law suit, amicably settle theeir differences, on such terms as they can agree upon". The word "compromise" implies some element of accommodation on each side. It is not apt to describe total surrender."

18. In Mohinderjit Kaur (supra), it has clearly been held that the Lok Adalat can dispose of the matter by way of compromise or settlement between the parties.

19. The same principle has been reiterated in Union of India vs. Ananto (Dead) and Another [(2007) 10 SCC 748].

20. Neither the order dated 17.05.1998 nor 20.05.1998 mentions that any compromise or settlement was arrived at between the parties in Lok Adalat. It is also not a case of the opposite parties that any compromise or settlement taken place in Lok Adalat between the parties.

21. Reading of the judgment dated 20.05.1998 clearly shows that the contested matter was decided on merits accepting the submissions of the party and rejecting the submission of the other side.

22. As the impugned order deserves to be quashed on the aforesaid ground, the court has not entered into the controversy as to whether there was service of notice on the petitioner and as to whether the petitioner was heard in Lok Adalat or only his brother was heard, inasmuch as this Court is of the considered view that even if the order dated 20.05.1998 was passed after hearing the petitioner or his counsel on 17.05.1998, the impugned order could not be passed on merits, in the absence of their being any settlement or compromise between the parties.

23. Submission of Ms. Shikha Sinha that the application for transfer to Lok Adalat can be filed by any of the parties does not require any consideration in the present case, as no such issue is involved, whether the transfer was made on the application of one party or the other, and as the fact remains undisputed that the case was transferred to the Lok Adalat. The transfer of case to the Lok Adalat from the court of Deputy Director of Consolidation is also not under challenge.

24. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 20.05.1998 cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed.

25. The revision filed by opposite party no. 2 stands restored to its original number before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad, which shall be proceeded with and decided in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned, expeditiously, as the matter pertains to the year 1998, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of copy of this judgment before the said authority.

26. In the interest of justice, it is further provided that for a period of six months or till decision of the revision by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, whichever is earlier, the possession of the petitioner over half of the plot no. 555/1 shall not be disturbed.

27. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observation/direction.

Order Date :- 22.9.2021

Nitesh

( Ravi Nath Tilhari, J. )