Lok Adalat award cannot be basis for re-determination of compensation under Section 28A of Land Acquisition Act: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that an award passed by a Lok Adalat under Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 cannot form the basis for re-determination of compensation contemplated under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [NOIDA vs Yunus]..A Bench of Justices KM Joseph and P Narasimha set aside a Allahabad High Court order which had held that an award passed by the Lok Adalat can form the foundation for exercising power under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act..In doing so, the Bench upheld the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Umadevi Rajkumar Jeure v. District Collector and the single-judge of the Karnataka High Court in Vasudave v. The Cimmissioner and Secretary Government, Revenue Department..The top court held that the only basis for invoking Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act for re-determination of the compensation is an adjudication by the Court as defined in the Act."What Section 28A indeed insists is on decision by a Civil Court as defined in Section 2(l). In other words what is made the only basis for invoking Section 28A of the Act is an adjudication by the Court as defined in the Act," the judgment said.Therefore, a plea founded on estoppel arising out of a consent decree or from an Award passed by a Lok Adalat which can perhaps be even likened to a consent decision cannot be the basis for redetermination of the compensation, the Court held.“The plea of estoppel which, ordinarily, arises from a consent decree or Award passed by the Lok Adalat which, as already noticed, does not involve any adjudication by a Court, would hardly suffice,” the Court made it clear..By way of background, after a 1983 notification under the Land Acquisition Act by NOIDA authority was passed for certain lands in Dadri tehsil for development, an award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer which bracketed the rate to be paid to the land givers at 24,000 per bigha. The respondents did not seek enhancement of compensation under Section 18 of the Act. However, Fateh Mohammad sought reference against the award.The reference was made over to a Lok Adalat. The Lok Adalat passed an award in 2016 where compensation was fixed at ₹297 per square yard as against ₹20 per square yard which was fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer by his 1984 Award.This led to the respondents filing applications before the Additional District Magistrate seeking shelter under Section 28A of the Act for redetermination of compensation. The Additional District Magistrate rejected the applications on the basis that the Lok Adalat award was on the basis of compromise.Writ petitions were filed before the High Court which held that an award of the Lok Adalat would be deemed to be decree of the Civil Court and, consequently, the respondents would be entitled to invoke Section 28A of the Act. NOIDA appealed to the Supreme Court against the order..One of the contentions before the Supreme Court was that Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987 creates a deeming fiction under which the Award of the Lok Adalat is to be treated as a decree.The Supreme Court, however, held that the legal fiction that the Lok Adalat Award is to be treated as a decree is “only to confer it with enforceability in like manner as if it were a decree” and no further than that.“In view of the provisions of Section 21 by which it is to be treated as a decree which cannot be challenged, undoubtedly, by way of an appeal in view of the express provisions forbidding it, unless it is set aside in other appropriate proceedings, it becomes enforceable. The purport of the law giver is only to confer it with enforceability in like manner as if it were a decree. Thus, the legal fiction that the Award is to be treated as a decree goes no further,” the judgment said..The top court, therefore, concluded that the Additional District & Sessions Judge was acting as Lok Adalat and was not disposing of the case as ‘the Court’ within the meaning of Land Acquisition Act.“It also cannot be treated as an award of the Court within the meaning of Section 20 and 21 of the ‘1987 Act,” the top court held while allowing the appeal..[Read Judgment]