S.Pullaiah Died Per Lrs Of 10 To 15 ... vs Lok Adalat Bench And 19 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 4158 Tel

  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

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

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

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:

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 -

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.

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."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

2021 (6) ALD 93 (SC)

2018 (5) ALD 231 (DB)

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

2018 (1) ALD 424 (DB)

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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."

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

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.

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

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.

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

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."

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

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.

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

(2008) 2 SCC 660

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

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

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

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

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

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

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