ESTATE OFFICER versus COLONEL H.V. MANKOTIA (RETIRED) on 7 October 2021

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated30.11.2013 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench atIndore in Writ Petition No. 8074 of 2011 by which in a Lok Adalat heldBon 30.11.2013, the members of the Lok Adalat has entered into the meritsof the writ petition and has dismissed the said writ petition preferred bythe appellant on merits, the original writ petitioner has preferred thepresent appeal.

2. That the appellant herein filed a writ petition before the HighCCourt being Writ Petition No.8074 of 2011. The matter was listed on30.11.2013 before the Lok Adalat. By the impugned order, the membersof the Lok Adalat held by the High Court entered into the merits of thewrit petition and dismissed the same on merits, which is the subjectmatter of the present appeal.

D2.1 That thereafter the appellant filed the restoration applicationbefore the High Court to restore the main writ petition submitting thatthe order passed in the Lok Adalat is beyond the jurisdiction of the LokAdalat and, therefore, the same is not legal in the eyes of law. However,the said application came to be dismissed by the High Court and hencethe present appeal.E

3. Shri Vikramjit Banerjee, learned ASG appearing on behalf ofthe appellant has vehemently submitted that the impugned order hasbeen passed in the Lok Adalat and the Lok Adalat, Madhya PradeshHigh Court has considered the case on merits and dismissed the sameon merits, which is wholly impermissible in view of the relevant provisionsFof the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as“the Act, 1987”). Shri Banerjee, learned ASG has heavily relied uponSection 19(5), Section 20(3) and Section 20(5) of the Act, 1987 in supportof his submission that a Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determineand to arrive at a compromise or a settlement between the parties to aGdispute and has no jurisdiction to enter into the merits of the case anddecide the matter on merits, in case the settlement is not arrived at. It issubmitted, therefore, that the impugned order passed by the Lok Adalat,Madhya Pradesh High Court is wholly without jurisdiction. Reliance isplaced upon the decision of this Court in the case of State of Punjaband Ors. Vs. Ganpat Raj (2006) 8 SCC 364.H

3.1 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent whileopposing the present appeal has submitted that the matter was placedbefore the Lok Adalat with the consent of the learned counsel for theappellant. It is submitted that, therefore, once the matter was placedbefore the Lok Adalat with the consent, entire matter would be at largebefore the Lok Adalat and, therefore, having found no substance in thepetition, the members of the Lok Adalat have rightly dismissed the writpetition, which in the facts and circumstances of the case is not requiredto be interfered with by this Court in exercise of power under Article136 of the Constitution.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length.

5. The short question which is posed for consideration of thisCourt is whether in the Lok Adalat held by the High Court, was it openfor the members of the Lok Adalat to enter into the merits of the writpetition and to dismiss the same on merits, in absence of anysettlementarrived at between the parties?

6. While answering the aforesaid question, the relevant provisionsof the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, which would have been abearing on the jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat are required to be referredto, which read as under:-

“19. Organization of Lok Adalats—(1) Every State Authorityor District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal ServicesCommittee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, asthe case may be, Taluk Legal Services Committee may organiseLok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising suchjurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.

(2) Every Lok Adalat organised for an area shall consist ofsuch number of :- (a) serving or retired judicial officers; and (b) other persons, of the area as may be specified by the State Authority or theDistrict Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committeeor the High Court Legal Services Committee, or as the case maybe, the Taluk Legal Services Committee, organising such LokAdalats.

(3) The experience and qualifications of other personsreferred to in clause (b) of sub-section (2) for LokAdalats organised by the Supreme Court Legal Services A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Committee shall be such as may be prescribed by theCentral Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of India.

(4) The experience and qualifications of other personsreferred to in clause (b) of sub-section (2) for Lok Adalatsother than referred to in sub-section (3) shall be such as may beprescribed by the State Government in consultation with the ChiefJustice of the High Court.

(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and toarrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to adispute in respect of :-

(i) any case pending before; or

(ii) any matter which is falling within the jurisdiction of, andis not brought before, any court for which the Lok Adalat is organised.

Provided that the Lok Adalat shall have no jurisdiction in respectof any case or matter relating to an offence not compoundableunder any law.

20. Cognizance of Cases by Lok Adalats—(1) Where in anycase referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (5) of Section 19-(i)

(i) (a) the parties thereof agree; or

(i) (b) one of the parties thereof makes an application tothe court, for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement andif such court is prima facie satisfied that there are chancesof such settlement; or

(ii) the court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriateone to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, the court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat:

Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalatunder sub-clause (b) of clause (i) or clause (ii) by such court exceptafter giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other lawfor the time being in force, the Authority or Committee organising the Lok Adalat under sub-section (1) of Section 19 may, on receiptof an application from any, one of the parties to any matter referredto in clause (ii) of sub-section (5) of Section 19 that such matterneeds to be determined by a Lok Adalat, refer such matter to theLok Adalat, for determination:

Provided that no matter shall be referred to the Lok Adalatexcept after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to theother party.

(3) Where any case is referred to a Lok Adalat under sub-section(1) or where a reference has been made to it under sub-section(2), the Lok Adalat shall proceed to dispose of the case or matterand arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties.

(4) Every Lok Adalat shall, while determining any reference beforeit under this Act, act with utmost expedition to arrive at acompromise or settlement between the parties and shall be guidedby the principles of justice equity, fair play and other legalprinciples.

(5) Where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the groundthat no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between theparties, the record of the case shall be returned by it to the court,from which the reference has been received under sub-section(1) for disposal in accordance with law.

(6) Where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the groundthat no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between theparties, in a matter referred to in sub-section (2), that Lok Adalatshall advice the parties to seek remedy in a court.

(7) Where the record of the case is returned under sub-section(5) to the court, such court shall proceed to deal with such casefrom the stage which was reached before such reference undersub-section (1).”

6.1 As per sub-section (5) of Section 19, a Lok Adalat shall havejurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or a settlementbetween the parties to a dispute in respect of (i) any case pendingbefore; or (ii) any matter which is falling within the jurisdiction of, and isnot brought before, any court for which the Lok Adalat is organised. Asper sub-section (1) of Section 20 where in any case referred to in clause A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

A(i) of sub-section (5) of Section 19- (i) (a) the parties thereof agree; or(i) (b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the court, forreferring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such court isprima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement or (ii)the court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be takencognizance of by the Lok Adalat, the court shall refer the case to theBLok Adalat. It further provides that no case shall be referred to the LokAdalat under sub-clause (b) of clause (i) or clause (ii) by such courtexcept after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties.

6.2 As per sub-section (3) of Section 20 where any case is referredto a Lok Adalat under sub-section (1) or where a reference is made to itCunder sub-section (2), the Lok Adalat shall proceed to dispose of thecase or matter and arrive at a compromise or settlement between theparties. Sub-section (5) of Section 20 further provides that where noaward is made by the Lok Adalat on the ground that no compromise orsettlement could be arrived at between the parties, the record of theDcase shall be returned by it to the court, from which the reference hasbeen received under sub-section (1) for disposal in accordance with law.

7. Thus, a fair reading of the aforesaid provisions of the LegalServices Authorities Act, 1987 makes it clear that the jurisdiction of theLok Adalat would be to determine and to arrive at a compromise or aEsettlement between the parties to a dispute and once the aforesaidsettlement / compromise fails and no compromise or settlement couldbe arrived at between the parties, the Lok Adalat has to return the caseto the Court from which the reference has been received for disposal inaccordance with law and in any case, the Lok Adalat has no jurisdictionat all to decide the matter on meris once it is found that compromise orFsettlementcould not be arrived at between the parties.

8. Identical question came to be considered by this Court in thecase of State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Ganpat Raj (supra) and afterconsidering Section 20 of the Act, 1987, it is observed and held inparagraph 7 as under:-G

“7. The specific language used in sub-section (3) of Section 20makes it clear that the Lok Adalat can dispose of a matter by wayof a compromise or settlement between the parties. Two crucialterms in sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 20 are “compromise”and “settlement”. The former expression means settlement of H

differences by mutual concessions. It is an agreement reachedby adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims by reciprocalmodification of demands. As per Termes de la Ley, “compromiseis a mutual promise of two or more parties that are at controversy”.As per Bouvier it is “an agreement between two or more persons,who, to avoid a law suit, amicably settle their differences, on suchterms as they can agree upon”. The word “compromise” impliessome element of accommodation on each side. It is not apt todescribe total surrender. (See NFU Development Trust Ltd.,Re [(1973) 1 All ER 135 : (1972) 1 WLR 1548 (Ch D)] ). Acompromise is always bilateral and means mutual adjustment.“Settlement” is termination of legal proceedings by mutual consent.The case at hand did not involve compromise or settlement andcould not have been disposed of by the Lok Adalat. If nocompromise or settlement is or could be arrived at, no order canbe passed by the Lok Adalat. Therefore, the disposal of Civil WritPetition No. 943 of 2000 filed by the respondent is clearlyimpermissible.”

9. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the LokAdalat dismissing the writ petition on merits is unsustainable and deservesto be quashed and set aside. The submission made by the learned counselappearing on behalf of the respondent that once the matter was placedbefore the Lok Adalat with consent, thereafter the entire matter is atlarge before the Lok Adalat and, therefore, the Lok Adalat is justified indisposing the matter on merits has no substance and the same is requiredto be rejected outright. The consent to place the matter before the LokAdalat was to arrive at a settlement and or a compromise between theparties and not for placing the matter before the Lok Adalat for decidingthe matter on merits. Once there is no compromise and/or a settlementbetween the parties before the Lok Adalat, as provided in sub-section(5) of Section 20, the matter has to be returned to the Court from wherethe matter was referred to Lok Adalat for deciding the matter on meritsby the concerned court.

10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, theimpugned order passed by the Lok Adalat, Madhya Pradesh High Courtdated 30.11.2013 in Writ Petition No.8074 of 2011 is hereby quashedand set aside. The matter is remanded to the High Court to decide theWrit Petition No.8074 of 2011 on merits and in accordance with law.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

AThe Writ Petition No.8074 of 2011 is ordered to be restored to the file ofthe High Court for its decision on merits and in accordance with law.The present appeal is accordingly allowed. In the facts and circumstancesof the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.B

Divya Pandey

Appeal allowed.

C

D

E

F

G

H