Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1512 (ALL)

Ratan Singh Alias Ratan Lal v. State of U. P.

2003-07-10

ASHOK BHUSHAN

body2003
JUDGMENT : Ashok Bhushan, J. Heard Sri S.K. Pundir, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned standing counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 2. By these two writ petitions, the Petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 13.6.2003 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Saharanpur and the order dated 13.5.2002 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation in Appeal No. 278 of 1933 u/s 11 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. Both the writ petitions have been filed challenging same orders and reference of facts of Writ Petition No. 28712 of 2003 are sufficient to decide both the petitions. 3. An objection u/s 9A (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (herein referred to as the Act) was filed by the Petitioner claiming recording his name over plot Nos. 362, 351 and 352 which were Matrook in basic year records. The objection u/s 9A (2) filed by the Petitioner was referred to the lok adalat constituted under the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The Consolidation Officer while functioning as lok adalat allowed the objection vide order dated 29.1.1994. The claim of the Petitioner u/s 122 (B) (4F) of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, was accepted, a belated appeal was filed by the Gaon Sabha against the order dated 29.1.1994 passed by the Consolidation Officer in lok adalat before S.O.C. An objection was raised by the Petitioner regarding maintainability of the appeal. The Petitioner contended before Settlement Officer of Consolidation that order passed in lok adalat is final and no appeal can be filed against the said order under U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation passed an order dated 13.5.2002 holding the appeal is maintainable and fixed the date for hearing of the appeal on merit. Against the order dated 13.5.2002 Petitioner filed a revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation which revision has been rejected by the order dated 13.6.2003 by the Deputy Director of Consolidation taking the view that the revision having been filed against interlocutory order, the revision is not maintainable. 4. Against the order dated 13.5.2002 Petitioner filed a revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation which revision has been rejected by the order dated 13.6.2003 by the Deputy Director of Consolidation taking the view that the revision having been filed against interlocutory order, the revision is not maintainable. 4. Counsel for the Petitioner, challenging the orders of Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 13.5.2002 and the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 13.6.2003, contended that the appeal filed by the Respondents against the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation is not maintainable, reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner on Section 21(2) of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Counsel for the Petitioner further contended that before the lok adalat, even pradhan appeared and objected the possession of the Petitioner. 5. The question, which has arisen for determination is as to whether the appeal filed by the Respondents against the order dated 29.1.1994, passed by the Consolidation Officer was maintainable. For deciding the aforesaid question, it is necessary to consider the jurisdiction of the lok adalat and the nature of orders, which are passed by lok adalat. 6. The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred 1987 Act) was enacted to provide free and competent Legal Services to the weaker section of the Society. Section 19 of the Act deals with organisation of the lok adalat which is quoted as below: 19. Organisation of lok adalats.-(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee of every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluk Legal Services Committee may organise lok adalats at such interval and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit. (2) Every lok adalat organised for an area shall consist of such number of: (a) Serving or retired judicial officers ; and (b) Other persons. Of the area as may be specified by the State Authority or the District Authority of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or the High Court Services Committee, or as the case may be, the Taluk Legal Services Committee, organising such lok adalat. Of the area as may be specified by the State Authority or the District Authority of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or the High Court Services Committee, or as the case may be, the Taluk Legal Services Committee, organising such lok adalat. (3) The experience and qualifications of other persons referred to in Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) for lok adalats organised by the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of India. (4) The experience and qualifications of other persons referred to in Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) for lok adalats other than referred to in Sub-section (3) shall be such as may be prescribed by the State Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court. (5) A lok adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of: (i) any case pending before ; or (ii) any matter which is falling within the jurisdiction of, and is not brought before, any court for which the lok adalat is organised ; Provided that the lok adalat shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any case or matter relating to on offence not compoundable under any law. Sub-section (5) of Section 19 provides that a lok adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute. Sub-section (5) indicates that the jurisdiction of the lok adalat is to arrive at compromise or settlement. 7. Section 20 of the Act deals with cognizance of cases by lok adalat, which in quoted as below: 20. Cognizance of cases by lok adalats.-(1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (1) of Sub-section (5) of Section 19: (i) (a) the parties thereof agree ; or (b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court, for referring the case to the lok adalat for settlement and if such Court is prima facie is satisfied that there are chances of such settlement ; or (ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one 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 adalat under Sub-clause (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Authority or Committee organising the lok adalat under Sub-section (1) of Section 19 may, on receipt of an application from any one of the parties to any matter referred to in Clause (ii) of Sub-section (5) of Section 19 that such matter needs to be determined by a lok adalat, refer such matter to the lok adalat, for determination: Provided that no matter shall be referred to the lok adalat except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the other 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 matter and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties. (4) Every lok adalat shall, while determining any reference before it under this Act, act with utmost expedition to arrive at a compromise or settlement between parties and shall be guided by the principles of justice, equity, fair play and other legal principles. (5) Where no award is made by the lok adalat on the ground that no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, 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 ground that no compromise or settlement could be arrived between the parties, in a matter referred to in Sub-section (2), that lok adalat shall 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 case from the stage which was reached before such reference under Sub-section (1)." Section 20 of the Act deals with cognizance of the cases by the lok adalat. (7) Where the record of the case is returned under Sub-section (5) to the Court, such Court shall proceed to deal with such case from the stage which was reached before such reference under Sub-section (1)." Section 20 of the Act deals with cognizance of the cases by the lok adalat. Sub-sections (3), (4), (5) and (6) disclose the clear intendment of the provisions to the effect that the case is to be decided by the lok adalat on compromise or settlement. The lok adalat while deciding the case has to act in accordance with it's jurisdiction as provided u/s 19 Sub-section (5) and the decision of the lok adalat is to be in accordance with statutory scheme as laid down in Section 20 of the Act. The key words which have been used in different Sub-sections of Sections 19 and 20 are ; arrive at compromise or settlement between the parties. 8. From the aforesaid provisions of Sections 19 and 20 it is clear that the award which is contemplated by the lok adalat is award on the basis of compromise or settlement between the parties. In case the parties fail to reach the settlement or compromise, the parties have to seek remedy in the Court and record is to be returned to the Court concerned. 9. Section 21 of the 1987 deals with award of lok adalat, which is: 21. Award of lok adalat.-(1) Every award of the lok adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court, or as the case may be, an order of any other Court and where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at, by a lok adalat in a case referred to it under Sub-section (1) of Section 20, the Court fee paid in such case shall be refunded in the manner provided under the Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870). (2) Every award made by a lok adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any court against the award. 10. Sub-section (2) of Section 21 provides that every award made by a lok adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any Court against the award. 11. Counsel for the Respondents have placed much reliance on Sub-section (2) of Section 21. 10. Sub-section (2) of Section 21 provides that every award made by a lok adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any Court against the award. 11. Counsel for the Respondents have placed much reliance on Sub-section (2) of Section 21. The finality which has been attached u/s 21, Sub-section (2) is finally to an award of the lok adalat which is made in accordance with Sections 19 and 20. When in order passed by the lok adalat is not in accordance with its jurisdiction as given u/s 19 Sub-section (5) and u/s 20, the finality as contemplated under Sub-section (2) of Section 21 will not come into operation. 12. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is clear that the order which has been passed by Consolidation Officer in lok adalat on 29.1.1994, was not passed on any compromise or settlement. A copy of the order has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The Consolidation Officer has noted in the order that notice was issued to the Gram Samaj and A.D.G.C. but no objection has been filed. Further, it has been noted that gram pradhan has appeared before the Court and refuted possession of the Petitioner. The Petitioner has been claiming right u/s 122 (B) (4F) of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, on the basis that he is in possession since before 13.6.1975. The Consolidation Officer did not refer to any compromise and settlement between the parties, rather it proceeded to decide the case after framing issues and gave judgment on merits. The order of Consolidation Officer dated 29.1.1994, was not passed on the basis of compromise or settlement. The order dated 29.1.1994 has not been in accordance with the jurisdiction given to the lok adalat under Sections 19 and 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. 13. The order of Consolidation Officer dated 29.1.1994, not being in accordance with Sections 19 and 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, cannot be treated to be an order passed by the lok adalat exercising its jurisdiction vested under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. 13. The order of Consolidation Officer dated 29.1.1994, not being in accordance with Sections 19 and 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, cannot be treated to be an order passed by the lok adalat exercising its jurisdiction vested under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The order dated 29.1.1994, not being in accordance with the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, the bar contemplated by Sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, will not be attracted. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation has rightly taken the view that the appeal against the order dated 29.1.1994, is maintainable u/s 11 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly rejected the revision filed by the Petitioner. 14. None of the submissions raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has any substance. The Appeal No. 278 of 1933, Gaon Sabha v. Ratan Singh Appeal No. 278 of 1933, pending before Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Saharanpur may be expeditiously disposed of in the light of the observations as made above. 15. Subject to observations as made above, the writ petition is dismissed summarily.