Summary
Landowners sought redetermination of acquisition compensation on the basis of a Lok Adalat award made in another owner’s reference. The Court held that Section 28A requires an adjudicatory award under Part III by the court defined in the Land Acquisition Act. A Lok Adalat’s compromise award does not meet that requirement merely because it is deemed a decree for enforcement. NOIDA’s appeals were allowed and the High Court’s contrary judgments set aside.
Issues
- Whether a Lok Adalat award could found redetermination of compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act.
- Whether the deemed-decree provision or consent estoppel supplied the necessary adjudicatory court award.
Provisions considered
- Sections 3(d), 26(2) and 28A, Land Acquisition Act, 1894Redetermination required an enhanced compensation award under Part III by the statutorily defined court, rather than a settlement award of a Lok Adalat. (¶¶ 17, 27, 31, 41-50)
- Sections 19(5), 20 and 21, Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987An ordinary Lok Adalat facilitates compromise; deeming its award a decree provides enforceability without converting it into the adjudicatory award required by Section 28A. (¶¶ 12-16, 26-27, 35-39, 46-49)
Held
- Section 28A’s beneficial purpose does not displace its express requirement of a court award under Part III. Such an award follows adjudication of the reference, with compensation determined under the statutory scheme. A compromise recorded by a Lok Adalat is different in character. (¶¶ 26-27, 30-31, 41-45)
- The legal fiction in Section 21 must serve its purpose: making the Lok Adalat award enforceable as a decree. It cannot be extended to deem that award an adjudication by the particular court contemplated in the Land Acquisition Act. Its binding and enforceable nature between its parties remains unaffected. (¶¶ 29, 33-39, 46-48)
- Consent estoppel operates between the parties to the settlement. It does not supply a statutory foundation for other landowners to obtain redetermination under Section 28A. (¶ 28-31)
- The judicial officer who recorded this award acted as a Lok Adalat, rather than as the reference court adjudicating under the acquisition statute. Reliance in the settlement on an earlier High Court rate did not change that capacity. The differently situated Andhra Pradesh case involving a subsequent reference-court award was distinguished. (¶ 49-51)
- The appeals were allowed and the High Court judgments set aside. The Court declared that an application under Section 28A could not be maintained on the basis of a Lok Adalat award under Section 20 of the 1987 Act. Parties were to bear their respective costs. (¶ 52)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court judgments set aside. Lok Adalat award under Section 20 cannot found Section 28A redetermination. Parties to bear their own costs.