Union Of India And Others vs Bana Bihari Mishra And .... Opp. Parties
2026 Latest Caselaw 1011 Ori

Orissa High Court

Union Of India And Others vs Bana Bihari Mishra And .... Opp. Parties on 5 February, 2026

Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo

Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                          W.P. (C) No.6238 of 2025


         Union of India and others             ....           Petitioners

                                          Mr. Alok Kumar Mohanty,
                                                  Sr. Panel Counsel

                                   -versus-

         Bana Bihari Mishra and                ....       Opp. Parties
         another


                    CORAM:
                    JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO

                                    ORDER

05.02.2026 Order (Hybrid Mode) No.

03. 1. Earlier the matter was heard at length on 03.02.2026.

2. It is submitted that before the Lok Adalat the petitioners did not give consent for passing of the award. The learned Senior Panel Counsel relies on Bhargavi Constructions and another v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and others: (2018) 13 SCC 480. Paragraph-24 is reproduced herein:

"24. In our considered view, the aforesaid law laid down by this Court is binding on all the courts in the country by virtue of mandate of Article 141 of the Constitution. This Court, in no uncertain terms, has laid down that challenge to the award of Lok Adalat can be done only by filing a writ petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the

Constitution of India in the High Court and that too on very limited grounds. In the light of clear pronouncement of the law by this Court, we are of the opinion that the only remedy available to the aggrieved person (respondents herein/plaintiffs) was to file a writ petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court for challenging the award dated 22-8-2007 passed by the Lok Adalat. It was then for the writ court to decide as to whether any ground was made out by the writ petitioners for quashing the award and, if so, whether those grounds are sufficient for its quashing."

3. At paragraph-33 of Bhargavi Constructions (supra) the following has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court (SCC Online Web Edition Print).

"33. So far as the second submission of the learned counsel for the respondents is concerned, it also has no merit. In our view, the decision rendered in State of Punjab [State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh, (2008) 2 SCC 660 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 669 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 524 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 535] is by the larger Bench (three Judge) and is, therefore, binding on us. No efforts were made and rightly to contend that the said decision needs reconsideration on the issue in question. That apart, when this Court has laid down a particular remedy to follow for challenging the award of Lok Adalat then in our view, the same is required to be followed by the litigant in letter and spirit as provided therein for adjudication of his grievance in the first instance. The reason being that it is a law of the land under Article 141 of the Constitution of India (see M. Nagaraj v. Union of India [M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 1013] ). It is then for the writ court to decide as to what orders need to be passed on the facts arising in the case."

4. At paragraph-12 of the decision rendered by three Hon'ble Judges in State of Punjab and another v. Jalour Singh and others: (2008) 2 SCC 660: (SCC Online Web Edition print): the following has been observed:

"12. It is true that where an award is made by the Lok Adalat in terms of a settlement 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 becomes 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 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 in 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."

[Emphasis supplied]

5. The learned Senior Panel Counsel seeks further adjournment.

Accordingly, the matter is adjourned to be taken up in the week commencing 09.02.2026.

Digitally Signed                                           (Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)

Reason: Authentication                                            Judge
Location: OHC            Jyotsna
Date: 06-Feb-2026 16:26:28