Karnataka High Court

Karnataka Neeravari Nigam ... vs The Special Land Acquisition ... on 16 February, 2022

Bench: B.M.Shyam Prasad

                            1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                        BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD

         WRIT PETITION NO.101823/2021      (LA-RES)
                         C/W
         WRIT PETITION NO.102195/2021      (LA-RES)
         WRIT PETITION NO.102196/2021      (LA-RES)
         WRIT PETITION NO.102197/2021      (LA-RES)
         WRIT PETITION NO.102201/2021      (LA-RES)
         WRIT PETITION NO.102202/2021      (LA-RES)
         WRIT PETITION NO.102203/2021      (LA-RES)
         WRIT PETITION NO.102204/2021      (LA-RES)


IN WRIT PETITION NO.101823/2021 (LA-RES)

BETWEEN

KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LIMITED
4TH FLOOR, COFFEE BOARD BUILDING,
NO. 1, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU,
PIN -560001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RANEBENNUR.

                                      ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ.C.BELLAKKI, ADV.)

AND

1.     THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
       UPPER TUNGA PROJECT
                             2




     RANEBENNUR,
     PIN 581115.

2.   THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
     REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT
     (MAJOR IRRIGATION PROJECTS)
     DC COMPOUND,
     BELGAUM-590001.

3.   RAMAPPA, S/O. BASAPPA KAALERA
     AGED MAJOR
     R/O. SUNNADAKOPPA
     TALUK SHIKARIPURA
     DISTRICT: SHIVAMOGGA
     PIN-577428.

                                           ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2;
    R3 SERVED)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
20.02.2020, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 SLAO
VIDE      ANNEXURE-E        BEARING     NO.BHUSWA/
TUMAYO/28A/CR-05/2019-20 AND ETC.


IN WRIT PETITION NO.102195/2021 (LA-RES)


BETWEEN

KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LIMITED
4TH FLOOR, COFFEE BOARD BUILDING,
NO. 1, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU,
PIN -560001.
                          3




REPRESENTED BY ITS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RANEBENNUR.

                                    ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. ROHAN HOSMATH AND
    SRI. SHIVARAJ.C.BELLAKKI, ADVOCATES)

AND

1.    THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
      UPPER TUNGA PROJECT
      RANEBENNUR,
      PIN 581115.

2.    THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
      REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT
      (MAJOR IRRIGATION PROJECTS)
      DC COMPOUND,
      BELGAUM-590001.

3.    SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA
      S/O BALAPPA GOOLANNANAVAR
      AGED MAJOR
      R/O HIREKABBAR, TAUK: HIREKERUR
      DISTRICT: HAVERI-581119.

                                    ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2;
    R3 SERVED)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
20.02.2020, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 SLAO
VIDE      ANNEXURE-E        BEARING     NO.BHUSWA/
TUMAYO/28A/CR-18/2019-20 AND ETC.
                             4




IN WRIT PETITION NO.102196/2021 (LA-RES)

BETWEEN

KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LIMITED
4TH FLOOR, COFFEE BOARD BUILDING,
NO. 1, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU,
PIN -560001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RANEBENNUR.

                                       ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. ROHAN HOSMATH AND
    SRI. SHIVARAJ.C.BELLAKKI, ADVOCATES)

AND

1.    THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
      UPPER TUNGA PROJECT
      RANEBENNUR,
      PIN 581115.

2.    THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
      REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT
      (MAJOR IRRIGATION PROJECTS)
      DC COMPOUND,
      BELGAUM-590001.

3.    SRI. SUDHAMA
      S/O BALAPPA PANDRERA
      AGED MAJOR
      R/O HIREKABBAR, TALUK: HIREKERUR
      DISTRICT: HAVERI-581119.

                                     ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2;
    R3 SERVED)
                             5




      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
20.02.2020, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 SLAO
VIDE      ANNEXURE-E        BEARING     NO.BHUSWA/
TUMAYO/28A/CR-19/2019-20 AND ETC.


IN WRIT PETITION NO.102197/2021 (LA-RES)

BETWEEN

KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LIMITED
4TH FLOOR, COFFEE BOARD BUILDING,
NO. 1, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU,
PIN -560001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RANEBENNUR.

                                       ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. ROHAN HOSMATH AND
    SRI. SHIVARAJ.C.BELLAKKI, ADVOCATES)

AND

1.    THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
      UPPER TUNGA PROJECT
      RANEBENNUR,
      PIN 581115.

2.    THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
      REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT
      (MAJOR IRRIGATION PROJECTS)
      DC COMPOUND,
      BELGAUM-590001.
                             6




3.   SRI. CHANNAPPA
     S/O RAMAPPA KOMANAL
     AGED MAJOR
     R/O HIREKABBAR, TALUK: HIREKERUR
     DISTRICT: HAVERI-581119.

4.   SMT. SHANTHAPPA
     S/O RAMAPPA KOMANAL
     AGED MAJOR
     R/O HIREKABBAR, TALUK: HIREKERUR
     DISTRICT: HAVERI-581119.

                                           ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2;
    R3 AND R4 ARE SERVED)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
20.02.2020, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 SLAO
VIDE               ANNEXURE-E               BEARING
NO.BHUSWA/TUMAYO/28A/CR-36/2019-20 AND ETC.


IN WRIT PETITION NO.102201/2021 (LA-RES)

BETWEEN

KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LIMITED
4TH FLOOR, COFFEE BOARD BUILDING,
NO. 1, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU,
PIN -560001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RANEBENNUR.

                                           ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ROHAN HOSMATH AND
    SRI. SHIVARAJ.C.BELLAKKI, ADVOCATES)
                          7




AND

1.    THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
      UPPER TUNGA PROJECT
      RANEBENNUR,
      PIN 581115.

2.    THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
      REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT
      (MAJOR IRRIGATION PROJECTS)
      DC COMPOUND,
      BELGAUM-590001.

3.    SRI. RAMESH
      S/O RANGAPPA PANDRERA
      AGED MAJOR
      R/O HIREKABBAR, TALUK: HIREKERUR
      DISTRICT: HAVERI-581119.

4.    SRI. KABARAPPA
      S/O HANUMANTHAPPA GIDDANANAVAR
      AGED MAJOR
      R/O HIREKABBAR, TALUK: HIREKERUR
      DISTRICT: HAVERI-581119.

                                   ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2;
    R3 AND R4 ARE SERVED)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
20.02.2020, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 SLAO
VIDE               ANNEXURE-E               BEARING
NO.BHUSWA/TUMAYO/28A/CR-01/2019-20 AND ETC.
                             8




IN WRIT PETITION NO.102202/2021 (LA-RES)

BETWEEN

KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LIMITED
4TH FLOOR, COFFEE BOARD BUILDING,
NO. 1, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU,
PIN -560001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RANEBENNUR.

                                           ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. ROHAN HOSMATH AND
    SRI. SHIVARAJ.C.BELLAKKI, ADVOCATES)

AND

1.    THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
      UPPER TUNGA PROJECT
      RANEBENNUR,
      PIN 581115.

2.    THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
      REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT
      (MAJOR IRRIGATION PROJECTS)
      DC COMPOUND,
      BELGAUM-590001.

3.    SRI. BASAPPA
      S/O EERAPPA KOMANAL
      AGED MAJOR
      R/O HIREKABBAR, TALUK: HIREKERUR
      DISTRICT: HAVERI-581119.

                                    ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2;
    R3 SERVED)
                             9




      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
20.02.2020, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 SLAO
VIDE ANNEXURE-E BEARING NO. BHUSWA/ TUMAYO/
28A/ CR-35/ 2019-20 AND ETC.


IN WRIT PETITION NO.102203/2021 (LA-RES)

BETWEEN

KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LIMITED
4TH FLOOR, COFFEE BOARD BUILDING,
NO. 1, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU,
PIN -560001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RANEBENNUR.

                                       ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. ROHAN HOSMATH AND
    SRI. SHIVARAJ.C.BELLAKKI, ADVOCATES)

AND

1.    THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
      UPPER TUNGA PROJECT
      RANEBENNUR,
      PIN 581115.

2.    THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
      REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT
      (MAJOR IRRIGATION PROJECTS)
      DC COMPOUND,
      BELGAUM-590001.
                            10




3.    SRI. MANJAPPA
      S/O NAGAPPA PANDRERA
      AGED MAJOR
      R/O HIREKABBAR, TALUK: HIREKERUR
      DISTRICT: HAVERI-581119.

                                    ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2;
    R3 SERVED)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
20.02.2020, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 SLAO
VIDE               ANNEXURE-E               BEARING
NO.BHUSWA/TUMAYO/28A/CR-12/2019-20 AND ETC.


IN WRIT PETITION NO.102204/2021 (LA-RES)

BETWEEN

KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LIMITED
4TH FLOOR, COFFEE BOARD BUILDING,
NO. 1, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU,
PIN -560001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RANEBENNUR.

                                           ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. ROHAN HOSMATH AND
    SRI. SHIVARAJ.C.BELLAKKI, ADVOCATES)

AND

1.    THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
      UPPER TUNGA PROJECT
                         11




     RANEBENNUR,
     PIN 581115.

2.   THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
     REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT
     (MAJOR IRRIGATION PROJECTS)
     DC COMPOUND,
     BELGAUM-590001.

3.   SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA
     S/O BALAPPA PANDRI
     AGED MAJOR
     R/O HIREKABBAR, TALUK: HIREKERUR
     DISTRICT: HAVERI-581119.

                                   ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2;
    SRI. S. G. KADAKATTI AND
    SRI. LANGESH KATTEMANE, ADVOCATES OF R3)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
20.02.2020, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 SLAO
VIDE ANNEXURE-E BEARING NO. BHUSWA/ TUMAYO/
28A/ CR-12/ 2019-20 AND ETC.



     THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                 12




                              ORDER

The question that arises for consideration in these

writ petitions is: whether the award passed by the Lok

Adhalath under the provisions of Section 20 of the Legal

Services Authority Act, 1987 could form the basis for

redetermination of compensation as contemplated

under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

(for short, 'the Act').

2. It is seen from the records that the different

lands owned by the private respondents in Rattihalli

Hobli, Hirekerur Taluk are notified for acquisition for

the petitioner's benefit. The preliminary notification is

issued on 11.10.2001 and the final notification is issued

on 26.12.2002. The award for payment of compensation

to the petitioner is approved on 20.06.2003. The private

respondents have filed their applications under Section

28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Act either in the

month of May, 2015 or in the month of June, 2015.

They have filed their applications after the award dated

14.03.2005 in LAC No.31/2012 on the file of the

Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur. The

redetermination as contemplated under Section 28A of

the Act in each of these petitions is by a similar order

and it would suffice for the purposes of this Court to

refer to one of the orders in these petitions.

3. The redetermination award in Writ Petition

No.101823/2021 in its material part read as under.

"ºÁªÉÃj f ÉèAiÀÄ »gÉÃPÉÃgÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆQ£À »gÉÃPÀ¨ÁâgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ°è£À d«ÄÃ£ÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÀÄAUÁ ªÉÄÃ®ÝAqÉ AiÉÆÃd£É ¸À®ÄªÁV ¨sÀÆ¸Áé¢üÃ£À¥Àr¹PÀÆAqÀ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄUÀ¼À ¨sÀÆ¸Áé¢üÃ£ÀPÉÌ ¸ÀA¨sÀA¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ªÀiÁ£Àå »jAiÀÄ ¢ªÁtÂ £ÁåAiÀiÁ¢üÃ±ÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ eÉJAJ¥sÀ¹ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ, »gÉÃPÉÃgÀÆgÀÄ gÀªÀgÀ J ï.J.¹ £ÀA.31/2012 ¢£ÁAPÀ 14.03.2015 gÀr ªÀiÁrzÀ DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ¨sÀÆ¸Áé¢üÃ£À PÁAiÉÄÝ-1894 gÀ PÀ®A.28(E) gÀr »gÉÃPÀ¨ÁâgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ j ¸À £ÀA.91/2 gÀ°è£À MlÄÖ PÉëÃvÀæ 00-26-00 J-UÀÄ-D UÀ½UÉ £ÀµÀÖ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ zsÀ£ÀzÀ ªÀÄgÀÄ ¤zsÀðgÀuÉAiÀÄ ªÀåvÁå¸ÀzÀ MlÄÖ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ zsÀ£À

gÀÆ.5,66,681.00 (gÀÆ. LzÀÄ ®PÀë DgÀªÀvÁÛgÀÄ ¸Á«gÀzÀ DgÀÄ£ÀÆgÁ JA§vÀÆÛAzÀÄ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ½ ªÀiÁvÀæ) UÀ¼À£ÀÄß «±ÉÃµÀ ¨sÀÆ¸Áé¢üÃ£Á¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, vÀÄAUÁ ªÉÄÃ®ÝAqÉ AiÉÆÃd£É,

gÁuÉÃ¨É£ÀÆßgÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ G ÉèÃR (8) gÀr ¸À°è¹zÀ PÀgÀqÀÄ LwÃ¥Àð£ÀÄß ¸ÀvÀå ¸ÀAUÀwUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ PÁ£ÀÆ¤UÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ZÀað¸À ÁVgÀÄªÀ EvÀgÉ ¤AiÀÄªÀÄUÀ¼À §UÉÎ «±ÉÃµÀ ¨sÀÆ¸Áé¢üÃ£Á¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, vÀÄAUÁ ªÉÄÃ®ÝAqÉ AiÉÆÃd£É, gÁuÉÃ¨É£ÀÆßgÀÄ EªÀgÀ ªÉÊAiÀÄQÛPÀ dªÁ¨ÁÝj ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ C£ÀÄªÉÆÃzÀ£É ¤ÃqÀ ÁVzÉ.

4. It is obvious that the redetermination is

based on the award dated 14.03.2015 in the aforesaid

proceedings in LAC No.31/2012, and the aforesaid the

award dated 14.03.2015 is pursuant to an application

filed by the claimants in that proceedings under order

XXIII Rule 3 of Code of Civil procedure, 1908 which is

referred to Mega Lok Adhalath held on 14.03.2015. The

application filed by that claimant is accepted and award

directed to be drawn by the Mega Lok Adhalath. The

question which arises for consideration and recorded at

the first instance has been considered by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in its recent decision in New Okhla

Industrial Development Authority (Noida) Vs Yunus &

Ors in Civil appeal No.901/2022 and this question is

answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court holding that an

award by the Lok Adhalath cannot be the basis for

redetermination as contemplated under Section 28A of

the Act. It would be useful to refer to the relevant part of

this judgment and is accordingly extracted as follows:

"Can the Court be oblivious to the plain language of the statute? Can we ignore the voice of the legislature when it is clear and unambiguous? Section 28A figures in Part III of the Act. It has a heading. The heading reads as 'Re- determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court'. The very opening words in our view deal a fatal blow to the very premise of the respondent's contention. An award under Part III of the Act commences with a reference under Section 18. The Court proceeds to adjudicate the reference in particular by bearing in mind the matters which are to be considered under Section 23 of the Act.

Section 24 declares matters which are to be neglected in determining compensation. Section 26 deals with the form of the award. Section 26(2) reads as follows:

"26. Forms of awards ............................................................ ................................................. ............................................................

        .................................................                              (2)
        Every such award shall be deemed to be
        a decree and the statement of                 the

grounds of every such award a judgment within the meaning of section 2. clause (2), and section 2, clause (9), respectively of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (5 of 1908)."

The award which is passed by the Lok Adalat cannot be said to be an award passed under Part III. It is the compromise arrived at between the parties before the Lok Adalat which culminates in the award by the Lok Adalat. In fact, an award under Part III of the Act contemplates grounds or reasons and therefore, adjudication is contemplated and Section 26(2) of the Act is self- explanatory.

The next aspect is even more fatal to the case of the respondents. Not only must it be an award passed as a result of the adjudication but it must be passed by 'the Court' allowing compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the collector. The word 'Court' has been defined in the Act as the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction unless the appropriate Government has appointed a Special Judicial Officer to perform judicial functions of the court under this Act. We have noticed the composition of a Lok Adalat in Section 19(2) of the '1987 Act'. The Court is not the same as a Lok Adalat.

The Award passed by the Lok Adalat in itself without anything more is to be treated by the deeming fiction to be a decree. It is not a case where a compromise is arrived at under Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, between the parties and the court is expected to look into the compromise and satisfy itself that it is lawful before it assumes efficacy by virtue of Section 21. Without anything more, the award passed by Lok Adalat becomes a decree. The enhancement of the compensation is determined purely on the basis of compromise which is

arrived at and not as a result of any decision of a 'Court' as defined in the Act.

An Award passed by the Lok Adalat is not a compromise decree. An Award passed by the Lok Adalat without anything more, is to be treated as a decree inter alia. We would approve the view of the learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court in P.T. Thomas (supra). An award unless it is successfully questioned in appropriate proceedings, becomes unalterable and non- violable. In the case of a compromise falling under Order XXIII Code of Civil Procedure, it becomes a duty of the Court to apply its mind to the terms of the compromise. Without anything more, the mere compromise arrived at between the parties does not have the imprimatur of the Court. It becomes a compromise decree only when the procedures in the Code are undergone.

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 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 redetermination as a matter of right given under Section 28A."

With this annunciation, the question for

consideration must necessarily be answered in favour of

the petitioner and the impugned award quashed. Hence

the following:

ORDER

The Writ petitions are allowed and the

second's respondent impugned orders dated

20.02.2020 in each of these petitions are

quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE RH