Mohinder Singh vs Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

The petitioner has challenged the award/order dated 13.7.2019 passed by the National Lok Adalat, Bilaspur in this petition preferred under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

Bare minimum factual position required for adjudication of this petition is that:-

2(i) A civil suit No. 53/1 of 2000 was instituted by one Nathu, predecessor-in-interest of petitioner and proforma respondents on 2.5.2000 seeking mandatory injunction against the respondents No. 1 and 2 for removal of the tower located over land measuring 0-3 biswas comprised in khewat No. 33, khatauni No. 35, khasra No. 133, situated at village Tali, Pargana Fatehpur, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur or in the alternative for payment of compensation alongwith interest for use of the land from the date of taking over of possession by respondents No. 1 and 2. Relief of permanent prohibitory injunction was also prayed for restraining the official respondents from damaging the crops or changing the nature of entire suit land measuring 8-8 bighas.

2(ii) As per the averments made in the petition, the suit was compromised in the Lok Adalat on 29.4.2006. It is further averred in the petition that in terms of this compromise, the official respondents had agreed to acquire 0-3 biswas of land and to pay compensation in lieu thereof. The respondents, however, did not adhere to their part of compromise. No steps were taken by them to comply with the order passed by the Lok Adalat despite repeated requests of the petitioner. In the meanwhile, two RSAs bearing Nos. 59 and 81 of 2006 involving somewhat similar controversy as was raised in the civil suit were decided on 11.7.2007 whereunder an Arbitrator was appointed to assess the amount of compensation to be paid for use of land of the parties therein.

2(iii) Present petitioner along with proforma respondents instituted execution Petition No. 1/10 of 2009 seeking enforcement of order dated 29.4.2006 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bilaspur. On the analogy of directions issued in RSA Nos. 59 and 81 of 2006 Learned Court appointed Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, District Bilaspur as Arbitrator in the matter. Learned Arbitrator held the proceedings on 18.2.2016, 6.4.2016 and 8.4.2016. In the proceedings held on 6.4.2016 the extent of land involved was determined at 167.98 Sq. meter for which the compensation @ Rs.3302/- per Sq. meter was assessed at Rs.5,54,696/-. From the documents appended in this petition, it appears that the negotiations failed and ultimately the Arbitrator vide his letter dated 20.7.2016 referred the matter back to the Civil Court with the observation that though the private parties had claimed approximately rupees eight lacs for the land in question and in the negotiation proceedings an amount of Rs.5,54,696/- @ 3302/- per Sq. meter was assessed for the land but the negotiation proceedings could not be finalized due to reluctance on part of official respondents to pay the assessed amount.

2(iv) Subsequently, the execution petition No. 1/10 of 2009, was referred to National Lok Adalat. On 13.7.2019 following order was passed by the Lok Adalat:

"13.7.2019:

Present: Sh. Vijay Thakur, Advocate, for DH.

Sh. Kamal Kanundal, Advocate, for JD.

The Ld. Counsel for the DH vide his separate statement has stated that he has instruction to settle the matter with the Jds, since the Jds are read to pay a cheque of amount of Rs 2,25,000/- to DH and intends to withdraw the present petition. In view of the statement made by the Ld. Counsel for the DH, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn. File after its due completion be consigned to record room."

The order/award passed by the National Lok Adalat on 13.7.2019 has been assailed in this petition.

3(i) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the impugned order was passed in presence of Shri Vijay Thakur, learned Advocate, who appeared for the Decree Holder, whereas Original Counsel of DH was Shri Sarpal Thakur. Shri Vijay Thakur, Advocate did not have any instruction to settle the matter on behalf of DH. Therefore, the order passed deserves to be set aside.

The argument raised is without any force as in the petition itself it has been submitted that Shri Vijay Thakur, Advocate had appeared on the directions of original Counsel Shri Sarpal Thakur due to latter's inability to attend the proceedings on the day. He had taken telephonic instruction from the petitioner for compromising the matter. To the query of the Court, learned Counsel for the petitioner admitted that no complaint in this regard has been lodged by the petitioner either against Shri Vijay Thakur or Shri Sarpal Thakur, learned Advocates.

3(ii) Learned Counsel for the petitioner next contended that the petitioner had telephonically instructed Shri Vijay Thakur, Advocate to compromise the matter for Rs.2,25,000/- each for each and every decree holder, whereas in the impugned award the matter has been settled for a total amount of Rs.2,25,000/- for all the Decree holders.

This version cannot be believed at all. The impugned order in very clear and unambiguous terms states that judgment debtors are ready to pay a cheque amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- to DH. Separate statement of the Counsel for the petitioner was also recorded to this effect. Thus, the amount settled was Rs.2,25,000/-in all. It was meant for all the decree holders jointly. There was no settlement that Rs.2,25,000/- each was to be paid to all the decree holders. In case the argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner is to be accepted, then the payable amount would have become much more than Rs.5,54,696/- assessed in the arbitration proceedings, which was not agreed to be paid by the official respondents. Petitioner cannot be expected to be so naive to believe that the officials respondents would agree to pay an amount which is way beyond the sum they refused to part with in the arbitration proceeding. As noticed earlier, no action has been taken by the petitioner against the learned Counsel who represented him and settled the matter in the Lok Adalat.

3(iii) Learned Counsel for the official respondents also submitted that in terms of the award Rs.2,25,000/- has been paid to the petitioner through a cheque.

3(iv) Another important aspect worth noticing is that out of various decree holders, it is only the petitioner who has assailed the order of Lok Adalat. The other decree holders have chosen not to come forward.

Hon'ble Apex Court in (2008) 2 SCC 660, titled State of Punjab and Another versus Jalour Singh and Others has held that the award passed by Lok Adalat can be challenged in a petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution on very limited grounds. Para-12 of the Judgment is extracted hereinbelow:

"12. It is true that where an award is made by 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."

The position was reiterated in (2018) 13 SCC 480, titled Bhargavi Constructions and another versus Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and others in following manner:

"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 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court for challenging the award dated 22.08.2007 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."

In the instant case, award was passed in presence of Shri Vijay Thakur, learned Counsel who appeared for DH on 13.7.2019. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the DH had not instructed the Counsel for settling the matter. The second argument raised by the petitioner is that the Counsel was instructed for settling the matter @ Rs.2,25,000/- each for all the decree holders. Firstly, this argument cuts across the first contention of the petitioner of not imparting any instruction to the Counsel. Secondly, petitioner has admittedly not taken any action against the learned Counsel representing him for settling the matter @2,25,000/- in lumpsum. Thirdly, in case this contention is taken at its face value, it would mean acceptance of official respondents to pay a compensation amount much more than what was even assessed by the Learned Arbitrator and was not agreed to by the official respondents. Hence looking from any angle, challenge to order dated 13.7.2019 must fail. Statement of leaned Counsel for official respondents No. 1 and 2 made during hearing of the case is taken note of that in case the cheque had not been encashed by the petitioner/proforma respondents, then the same shall be remitted again within a period of two weeks from today.

The petition, therefore, is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.