Bombay High Court
Vandana Dattatray Jamkavale And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 29 January, 2025
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2025:BHC-AUG:2372-DB
1 WP / 10268 / 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 10268 OF 2015
1] Vandana Dattatray Jamkhavale
Age : 55 years, Occu. Agri.
2] Sandeep Vasant Jamkavale
Age : 40 years, Occu. Agri.,
3] Dattatray Shivling Jamkavale
Age : 58 years, Occu. Agri.,
4] Mallikarjun Vasant Jamkavale,
Age : 44 years, Occu. Agri.,
All petitioners are R/o
Kharda, Tq. Jamkhed,
Dist. Ahmednagar .. Petitioners
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra,
Through : The Secretary,
Irrigation Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
2] The Collector, Ahmednagar,
District - Ahmednagar
3] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
No. 1, Ahmednagar
4] District Legal Services Authority,
Through its : Chairman,
District Judge, Ahmednagar,
District - Ahmednagar
5] The Executive Engineer,
M.I. Division No. 1,
Ahmednagar .. Respondents
...
Advocate for petitioners : Mr. Ajeet B. Kale
AGP for the respondents 1 to 5 : Mr. V.M. Kagne
...
2 WP / 10268 / 2015
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 20 JANUARY 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 29 JANUARY 2025
JUDGMENT (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :
By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution,
the petitioners are taking exception to the terms of settlement arrived
at in a Lok Adalat held on 07-02-2011 (Exhibit - C), whereby reference
preferred by them under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
for enhancement of the compensation which was numbered as Land
Acquisition Reference No. 44 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Civil
Judge Senior Division, Shirgonda, was disposed of by passing an
award on the basis of the terms of settlement under challenge.
2. We have heard both the sides finally at the stage of
admission.
3. Mr. Kale, learned advocate for the petitioner would take us
through the record and proceedings of the reference Court and would
submit that a Lok Adalat was organised under the provisions of Legal
Services Authorities Act, 1987 (Act of 1987). There was no notice to
the petitioners regarding the Lok Adalat. The petitioners were not
served with any notice, as required by section 19 and 20 of the Act of
1987. Their matter was kept in the Lok Adalat for settlement without
3 WP / 10268 / 2015
their concurrence. The settlement was certified behind their back and
without their signatures. It would be a forced settlement and, therefore,
in absence of any notice to the petitioners and without their signatures,
the terms of settlement certified by the Lok Adalat be quashed and set
aside.
4. He would further submit that even the terms of settlement
were not drawn in the format prescribed under Appendix I and in light
of bar prescribed by section 21(2) of the Act of 1987, the petitioners
can challenge the terms of settlement by invoking the powers of this
Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Kale
would also substantiate his arguments, by referring to the larger bench
decisions of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab V.
Jalour Singh and another; 2008 (2) SCC 660 and State of Punjab
and others V. Ganpat Raj; AIR 2006 SC 3089.
5. Learned AGP would submit that it is a matter of settlement
arrived at before the duly constituted Lok Adalat. The petition is an
afterthought. The terms of settlement bear signature of petitioner
no. 1 and even the petitioners' learned advocate, who was representing
them before the reference Court. He would submit that pursuant to
such settlement arrived at, the award has been passed by the
reference Court. Though the signatures of all the petitioners are not
appearing on the terms of settlement, petitioner no. 1 can be said to
4 WP / 10268 / 2015
have signed for and on behalf of all of them when even the learned
advocate representing them was also a signatory to the terms of
settlement. He would submit that the terms of settlement were arrived
at on 07-02-2011 and even the award was passed on the very day, in
terms of such settlement and it was too late in the day for the
petitioners to have raised the grievance after a lapse of more than 4
years.
6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused
the papers.
7. At the outset, it is pertinent to observe that the scope for
this Court to undertake and exercise the powers under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, in the matter of a settlement arrived at before
the Lok Adalat, is very limited, as has been observed in paragraph no.
12 in the matter of Jalour Singh (supra). Conspicuously, the
petitioners are not attributing any fraud or misrepresentation which
allegations being serious, have to be strictly pleaded giving all the
details. Going by the pleadings in the petition memo, based on only
few technical issues that the petitioners are seeking to take exception
to the impugned settlement viz, absence of notice to them of the Lok
Adalat and taking up the matter by the Lok Adalat abruptly, absence of
signatures of all the petitioners.
5 WP / 10268 / 2015
8. It is pertinent to note that the petition does not expressly
deny the signature of the petitioner no. 1 on the terms of settlement
and that of their learned advocate who was representing them before
the reference Court. If at all this was the state-of-affair, in the absence
of enough circumstances indicating fraud or misrepresentation, in the
absence of specific stand and allegations in the writ petition disputing
signature of petitioner no. 1 and that of the learned advocate of the
petitioners, whom they had engaged in the reference before the
reference Court and even without there being any explanation, in our
considered view, the petitioners are not entitled to take exception to the
terms of settlement.
9. Merely pointing out some procedural lapses, would not be
sufficient to unsettle the terms of settlement arrived at before the Lok
Adalat. To repeat, the terms of settlement purportedly bear signature of
petitioner no. 1 and that of petitioners' learned advocate. There are no
allegations to make out a case of fraud or misrepresentation. There is
not even an explanation as to how these signatures appear on the
terms of settlement which are apparently signed even by the learned
Judge of the reference Court, the head of the panel, the Special Land
Acquisition Officer as also his learned advocate. In our considered
view, these are the circumstances which are eloquent enough to
dismiss the petition.
6 WP / 10268 / 2015
10. Additionally, the fact that these settlements were arrived at
on 07-02-2011, the award was passed on the very day, and still, the
petition was filed as late as on 29-06-2015 almost 3-½ years thereafter,
coupled with conspicuous absence in the petition of any explanation for
the delay, rather expressly mentioning that it was filed within the
stipulated period of limitation as mentioned in clause 16, would be an
additional circumstance which would lend credence to our inference
that the petition has been filed as an afterthought, without taking out
any proceeding to the terms of settlement soon after those were
certified.
11. In the matter of Jalour Singh (supra), the circumstances
were peculiar. The parties were not present and only their counsels
were present when the matter was taken up before the Lok Adalat and
the High Court had repeatedly refused to examine the challenge put up
by the claimants. In our considered view, the petitioners are not
entitled to derive any benefit from this decision.
12. In the matter of Ganpat Raj (supra), referring to the
provisions of section 20 of the Act of 1987, it was observed that there
has to be a properly constituted reference to enable the Lok Adalat to
dispose of the matter by way of settlement. In the process,
amendment to the terms, compromise and settlement were discussed,
7 WP / 10268 / 2015
when in the matter in hand, the afore-mentioned circumstances are
indicative of the fact of the petitioners having consented to the terms
and conditions of settlement. They are not even entitled to take benefit
of this decision either.
13. The petition is dismissed.
14. Rule is discharged.
[ PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ]
JUDGE JUDGE
arp/
