JUDGMENT S.C. Das, J. 1. Common questions of law raised in all the writ petitions and hence, on the prayer of the parties, all the five writ petitions are taken up together for hearing and disposal. This single order shall govern all the cases. Heard learned senior counsel, Mr. S. Deb, assisted by learned counsel, Mr. D.C. Nath for the writ petitioners and learned A.S.G., Mr. P.K. Biswas for respondent No. 2 of the writ petitions and learned counsel, Mr. D.K. Biswas for respondent No. 1 in W.P. (C) No. 91/2003. In other writ petitions, the respondent No. 1 has chosen to remain absent. 2. In W.P. (C) Nos. 90, 91, 92 and 93 of 2003 respondent No. 1 submitted counter-affidavit. In W.P. (C) No. 121/2003 no counter-affidavit is filed by the respondent No. 1. 3. The case of the petitioners is that for the purpose of construction of 22 Assam Rifle Complex at Mouja-Kamalacherra under Kulai Tahashil Kachari, on a requisition made by Union of India through respondent No. 2, certain 21.4 acres of land were proposed for acquisition and accordingly, the notification, dated 07.08.1999 under Section 4 and the declaration, dated 19.02.2000, under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, were issued vide Annexures-1 and 2 respectively of the writ petitions. While the acquisition process was going on, respondent No. 1 of the respective writ petitions approached the Chairman, Sub-Divisional Legal Services Committee, Kamalpur with a dispute regarding lands in question and based on such approach, made by the respective respondent No. 1 of the writ petitions, Lok Adalat was constituted by the Chairman of such Sub-Divisional Legal Services Committee and the respective petitions filed by respondent No. 1 of the writ petitions, pre-litigative disputes for settlement in Lok Adalat, were registered. Applications filed by the respective respondent No. 1 of the writ petitions before the Lok Adalat were registered as pre-litigative disputes. Applications filed by the respective respondent No. 1 of the writ petitions before the Lok Adalat were registered as pre-litigative disputes. The application filed by respondent No. 1 of W.P. (C) No. 90/2003 was registered as pre-litigative dispute No. 8/2002; application filed by respondent No. 1 of W.P. (C) No. 91/2003 was registered as pre-litigative dispute No. 7/2002; application filed by respondent No. 1 of W.P. (C) No. 92/2003 was registered as pre-litigative dispute No. 9/2002; application filed by respondent No. 1 of W.P. (C) No. 93/2003 was registered as pre-litigative dispute No. 10/2002 and the application filed by respondent No. 1 of W.P. (C) No. 123/2003 was registered as pre-litigative dispute No. 16/2002. 4. The writ petitioners, i.e. L.A. Collector and the respondent No. 2 were served with a notice to appear before Lok Adalat and accordingly they appeared and the Lok Adalat, vide order dated 18.082002, disposed the cases, without having any settlement on compromise, passing an identical order in the case, which is marked as Annexure-6 to all the writ petitions. For ready reference, order dated 18.08.2002, passed in pre-litigative dispute No. 8/2002 (Annexure-6 to W.P. (C) No. 90/2003) is reproduced which reads thus:-- ORDER DATED, 18.08.2002 This is a case where certain khash lands have been included in the Land Acquisition Proceeding and then given possession to the Assam Rifles. From the Record of Right it appears that Plot No. 684 P is in khash khatian No. 1/20 and in column 24 the lands have been recorded in possession of Sri Hememdra Sharma. Admittedly no notice was served on him before the land was included in the L.A. Proceeding. The khash land can never come in L.A. Proceeding. It was possible for the State Govt. or the D.M. & Collector to allot the land in favor of Assam Rifles after evicting any unauthorized occupant. This has not been done in this case. L.A. Collector has acted beyond his jurisdiction by including khash lands in occupation of Sri Hemendra Sharma for the L.A. Proceeding. Therefore, the order of L.A. collector is not legally valid. This Court decided that the land should be vacated by Assam Rifles and if in future the State Govt. so decides the same land may be allotted in favour of the Assam Rifles after evicting unauthorized occupant if any. Therefore, the order of L.A. collector is not legally valid. This Court decided that the land should be vacated by Assam Rifles and if in future the State Govt. so decides the same land may be allotted in favour of the Assam Rifles after evicting unauthorized occupant if any. Subsequently, on 08.12.2002, the same Lok Adalat reviewed the earlier order and passed a fresh order which is marked as Annexure-8 to the writ petitions. For ready reference, order dated 08.12.2002, passed in pre-litigative dispute No. 8/2002, marked as Annexure-8 to the W.P. (C) No. 90/2003, is reproduced which reads thus:-- ORDER DATED 08.12.2002 The present dispute vide No. PLD 08/2002 is taken up suo-moto for review of the order dated, 18.08.2002 passed by this Court in case No. PLD 08/2002. It appears that the 1st party is in possession of the plot No. 684 since, 23.09.63. In fact this land was purchased by Sri Surendra Ch. Sharma, the father of the 1st party from one Saukat Ali and since then the petitioner is in continuous peaceful possession exercising his right, title, interest over the property denying the right, title, interest of all concerned, as such, his continuous possession has perfected to title over the land. Hence, the L.A. Collector, Dhalai or any concerned may only evict the petitioner either by acquisition or in any other lawful mode by giving due statutory compensation prevailing in that locality. With the above observation the review petition is disposed of. Supply a copy of the order free of cost to the parties. 5. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Deb, has submitted that the impugned orders passed by Lok Adalat are glaring instances of misuse of power prescribed by law. Learned counsel has submitted that the power of the Lok Adalat is conciliatory and not adjudicatory. The impugned orders makes it clear that without arriving at a compromise between the parties, the Lok Adalat usurped its jurisdiction and passed orders in an adjudicatory fashion which is not the prescription of law. The orders are ex-facie illegal and unconstitutional, beyond jurisdiction and, therefore, liable to be interfered in the writ petitions to set the things at right. The impugned orders makes it clear that without arriving at a compromise between the parties, the Lok Adalat usurped its jurisdiction and passed orders in an adjudicatory fashion which is not the prescription of law. The orders are ex-facie illegal and unconstitutional, beyond jurisdiction and, therefore, liable to be interfered in the writ petitions to set the things at right. He also submitted that Annexure-5 series shows that Lok Adalat issued notice asking the L.A. Collector and respondent No. 2 to appear before the Lok Adalat and on that day, the Land Acquisition Collector appeared but not even a copy of the petition was supplied to the L.A. Collector and the objection so raised by the L.A. Collector was not taken into consideration and the Lok Adalat unilaterally passed the order beyond jurisdiction. It is further submitted by learned senior counsel, Mr. Deb that subsequently, the Lok Adalat again issued notice to appear before it, on 08.12.2002 and on that day itself, ignoring the procedure prescribed by law, Lok Adalat by impugned order dated 08.12.2002 reviewed its earlier order passed on 18.08.2002, which is completely beyond jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat. In support of his contention learned counsel relied on the following case laws-- (i) (2012) 4 SCC 307 , (ii) (2010) 9 SCC 437, (iii) (2009) 2 SCC 198 and (iv) AIR 1951 S.C. 41 . 6. Respondent No. 1 in W.P. (C) Nos. 90, 91, 92 and 93 of 2003 submitted counter-affidavit inter alia stating that the dispute cropped up while the acquisition proceeding was initiated and therefore, the respondents approached Lok Adalat and based on their applications, Lok Adalat taken cognizance and passed the impugned orders in presence of the parties. Order passed by a Lok Adalat is final according to the provisions prescribed in the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987 (hereinafter for short Act of 1987) and so, the writ petitions filed, challenging the order passed by Lok Adalat, shall be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel, Mr. D.K. Biswas, appearing for the respondent No. 1 in W.P. (C) No. 91 of 2003, has submitted that the L.A. Collector has no locus standi to challenge the order passed by Lok Adalat. The function of the L.A. Collector is statutory and the dispute is between the concerned land holders and the requiring department i.e. the Union of India. D.K. Biswas, appearing for the respondent No. 1 in W.P. (C) No. 91 of 2003, has submitted that the L.A. Collector has no locus standi to challenge the order passed by Lok Adalat. The function of the L.A. Collector is statutory and the dispute is between the concerned land holders and the requiring department i.e. the Union of India. So, the L.A. Collector being statutory authority cannot say that he is materially aggrieved by the order passed by Lok Adalat and hence the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 8. Learned ASG., Mr. P.K. Biswas, has submitted that the orders passed by Lok Adalat are ex-facie beyond jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions prescribed in the Act of 1987 and for fair ends of justice as well as to uphold the administration of justice the orders are liable to be interfered. In support of his contention learned A.S.G. placed reliance on the following case laws-- (i) AIR 2008 SC 1209 and (ii) 2011 (5) GLR 9. 9. Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ petitions shows that an acquisition proceeding of the land belonged to different land holders at Mouja-Kamalacherra under Kulai Tahashil Kachari had been taken up at the instance of Government of India for the purpose of construction of 22nd Assam Rifle Complex. Annexure-5 to the writ petition shows that the L.A. Collector, Ambassa, Dhalai was served with a notice to appear before the Lok Adalat in connection with the particular case. The impugned orders passed by Lok Adalat ex-facie makes it abundantly clear that no conciliatory approach was extended by the Lok Adalat and the orders were passed in an adjudicatory approach giving goodbye to the very concept of dispute resolution mechanism as prescribed under the Act of 1987. For fair appreciation, let us reproduce here the provisions of Sections 19 and 20 of the Act of 1987 which reads thus: CHAPTER VI LOK ADALATS 19. Organization of Lok Adalats.--(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluk Legal Services Committee may organize Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit. Organization of Lok Adalats.--(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluk Legal Services Committee may organize Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit. (2) Every Lok Adalat organized 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 or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or the High Court Legal Services Committee, or as the case may be, the Taluk Legal Services Committee, organizing such Lok Adalat. (3) The experience and qualifications of other persons referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (2) for Lok Adalats organized 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 a 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 organized: Provided that the Lok Adalat shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any case or matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law. 20. 20. Cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats.--(1) Where in any case referred to in clause (i) 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 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 organizing 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 the 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. (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 at 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. A bare reading of the above provisions makes it clear that the Lok Adalat constituted under Sections 19 and 20 of the Act of 1987 cannot usurp jurisdiction to adjudicate any dispute like ordinary Court of Law and cannot issue direction to any party thereto. 10. Lok Adalat is an effective, efficient and important form of our ancient Indianized dispute resolution mechanism providing informal, inexpensive and expeditious justice to a common man. A large section of people of our country do not have access to justice. Mostly the people who are poor and illiterate are deprived of their basic rights enshrined in the constitution. It is because of poverty, ignorance and backwardness. The Legal Services Authorities Act 1987, has been enacted with a view to provide free and competent legal services to the weaker sections of the society to ensure that opportunities of securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities, and also with a view to provide statutory backing to the institution of Lok Adalats, which has become very popular and through which a large numbers of cases are quickly disposed of amicably. It is widely recognized that advantage of Lok Adalat is multifarious. It is absolutely conciliatory in nature. The Judges/Conciliators of the Lok Adalat shall assist the parties to arrive at a settlement of the disputes and in the event parties arrive to such a settlement, the Lok Adalat shall put its hand and seal to such settlement which shall be deemed to be a decree of the Civil Court. 11. It is absolutely conciliatory in nature. The Judges/Conciliators of the Lok Adalat shall assist the parties to arrive at a settlement of the disputes and in the event parties arrive to such a settlement, the Lok Adalat shall put its hand and seal to such settlement which shall be deemed to be a decree of the Civil Court. 11. The Supreme Court in the case of Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi, reported in (2012) 4 SCC 307 in Para 22 observed thus: 22. There can be no dispute regarding the settled legal proposition that conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative function and it can neither be conferred with the consent of the parties nor by a superior Court, and if the Court passes order/decree having no jurisdiction over the mater, it would amount to a nullity as the matter goes to the roots of the cause. Such an issue can be raised at any belated stage of the proceedings including in appeal or execution. The finding of a Court or tribunal becomes irrelevant and unenforceable/in-executable once the forum is found to have no jurisdiction. Acquiescence of a party equally should not be permitted to defeat the legislative animation. The Court cannot derive jurisdiction apart from the statute. In the case at hand, the Lok Adalat based on a petition filed by the respondent No. 1 of the respective writ petitions taken up the dispute serving notice on the other side and passed the order directing writ petitioners and the District Magistrate etc. in an adjudicatory manner which is beyond jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat. The order, therefore, since beyond jurisdiction cannot sustain in law. Curiously, the Lok Adalat after passing the order dated 18.08.2002 (Annexure-6 to the writ petitions), again taken up the respective pre-litigative disputes, on 08.12.2002 and reviewed its order dated 18.08.2002. Once Lok Adalat entertains the dispute and the parties arrived at a settlement and the Lok Adalat puts its seal to such settlement, it has no authority to reopen it. Once it is settled between the parties, it is settled for ever. Here, in the cases at hand, Lok Adalat adopted a procedure which is not at all recognized by law. Once it is settled between the parties, it is settled for ever. Here, in the cases at hand, Lok Adalat adopted a procedure which is not at all recognized by law. The Supreme Court in the case of Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania and Ors., (2010) 9 SCC 437, in Paras 12, 13 and 14 observed thus: Review in absence of statutory provisions: 12. It is settled legal proposition that unless the statute/rules so permit, the review application is not maintainable in case of judicial/quasi-judicial orders. In the absence of any provision in the Act granting an express power of review, it is manifest that a review could not be made and the order in review, if passed is ultra-vires, illegal and without jurisdiction. (Vide: Patel Chunibhai Dajibha v. Narayanrao Khanderao Jambekar and Anr. and Harbhajan Singh v. Karam Singh and Ors.). 13. In Patel Narshi Thakershi and Ors. v. Shri Pradyuman Singhji Arjunsinghji; Maj. Chandra Bhan Singh v. Latafat Ullah Khan and Ors.; Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidhyalaya, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors.; State of Orissa and Ors. v. Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement, Cuttack and Ors. and Sunita Jain v. Pawan Kumar Jain and Ors., this Court held that the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either expressly/specifically or by necessary implication and in the absence of any provision in the Act/Rules, review of an earlier order is impermissible as review is a creation of statute. Jurisdiction of review can be derived only from the statute and thus, any order of review in absence of any statutory provision for the same is nullity being without jurisdiction. 14. Therefore, in view of the above, the law on the point can be summarised to the effect that in the absence of any statutory provision providing for review, entertaining an application for review or under the garb of clarification/modification/correction is not permissible. In the case of B.P. Moideen Sevamandir and Anr. v. A.M. Kutty Hasan, (2009) 2 SCC 198 the Apex Court while explaining the purpose and scope of Lok Adalat in the facts and circumstance of the reported case in Paras 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 observed thus: 8. In the case of B.P. Moideen Sevamandir and Anr. v. A.M. Kutty Hasan, (2009) 2 SCC 198 the Apex Court while explaining the purpose and scope of Lok Adalat in the facts and circumstance of the reported case in Paras 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 observed thus: 8. When a case is referred to the Lok Adalat for settlement, two courses are open to it: (a) if a compromise or a settlement is arrived at between the parties, to make an award, incorporating such compromise or settlement (which when signed by the parties and countersigned by the members of the Lok Adalat, has the force of a decree); or (b) if there is no compromise or settlement to return the record with a failure report to the Court. There can be no third hybrid order by the Lok Adalat containing directions to the parties by way of final decision, with a further direction to the parties to settle the case in terms of such directions. In fact, there cannot be an 'award' when there is no settlement. Nor can there be any 'directions' by the Lok Adalat determining the rights/obligations/title of parties, when there is no settlement. The settlement should precede the award and not vice versa. 9. When the Lok Adalat records the minutes of a proceeding referring to certain terms and directs the parties to draw a compromise deed or a memorandum of settlement and file it before the Court, it means that there is no final or concluded settlement and the Lok Adalat is only making tentative suggestions for settlement; and such a proceeding recorded by the Lok Adalat, even if it is termed as an 'award', is not an 'award of the Lok Adalat'. 10. Although the members of Lok Adalats have been doing a commendable job, sometime they tend to act as Judges, forgetting that while functioning as members of Lok Adalats, they are only statutory conciliators and have no judicial role. 10. Although the members of Lok Adalats have been doing a commendable job, sometime they tend to act as Judges, forgetting that while functioning as members of Lok Adalats, they are only statutory conciliators and have no judicial role. Any overbearing attitude on their part, or any attempt by them to pressurize or coerce parties to settle matters before the Lok Adalat (by implying that if the litigant does not agree for settlement before the Lok Adalat, his case will be prejudiced when heard in Court), will bring disrepute to Lok Adalats as an alternative dispute resolution process (for short 'ADR process') and will also tend to bring down the trust and confidence of the public in the Judiciary. 11. In this case the proceedings dated 25.5.2007 is termed as an 'award'. It is also described as an 'order' and 'directs' the appellant to vacate certain buildings on or before 31.7.2007 and further directs that on such surrender, another portion shall belong to the appellants. Such an 'award' could have been made by the Lok Adalat only when there was a final settlement between the parties. The procedure adopted by the Lok Adalat on 25.5.2007, was clearly erroneous and illegal The learned Counsel for the respondent stated that the Lok Adalat followed the said procedure of passing an 'Award' dated 25.5.2007 and directing parties to file a compromise in the Court, only to enable the appellants to get refund of Court fee. We fail to understand how the question of refund of Court fee can have any bearing on the compliance with the statutory requirements relating to a settlement and award by a Lok Adalat. 12. Such strange orders by Lok Adalats are the result of lack of appropriate rules or guidelines. Thousands of Lok Adalats are held all over the country every year. Many members of Lok Adalats are not judicially trained. There is no fixed procedure for the Lok Adalats and each Adalat adopts its own procedure. Different formats are used by different Lok Adalats when they settle the matters and make awards. We have come across Lok Adalats passing 'orders', issuing 'directions' and even granting declaratory relief, which are purely in the realm of Courts or specified Tribunals, that too when there is no settlement. The Act of 1987 does not prescribe any provision of review or revision. We have come across Lok Adalats passing 'orders', issuing 'directions' and even granting declaratory relief, which are purely in the realm of Courts or specified Tribunals, that too when there is no settlement. The Act of 1987 does not prescribe any provision of review or revision. The Lok Adalat, in the case at hand, passed an order reviewing its earlier order in an adjudicatory manner and it is ex-facie beyond jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat and, therefore, liable to be interfered. 12. The jurisdiction, power and function of the Lok Adalats has been categorically explained by Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and Anr. v. Jalour Singh and Ors., (2008) 2 SCC 660 . The observation made by the Apex Court in that reported case has been followed in all subsequent cases, adjudicated by the Apex Court and the High Courts. The observation of the Apex Court reads thus: Lok Adalats have no adjudicatory or judicial functions. Their functions relate purely to conciliation. A Lok Adalat determines a reference on the basis of a compromise or settlement between the parties at its instance, and puts its seal of confirmation by making an award in terms of the compromise or settlement. When the Lok Adalat is not able to arrive at a settlement or compromise, no award is made and the case record is returned to the Court from which the reference was received, for disposal in accordance with law. No Lok Adalat has the power to 'hear' parties to adjudicate cases as a Court does. It discusses the subject-matter with the parties and persuades them to arrive at a just settlement. In their conciliatory role, the Lok Adalats are guided by the principles of justice, equity and fair play. When the LSA Act refers to 'determination' by the Lok Adalat and 'award' by the Lok Adalat, the said Act does not contemplate nor require an adjudicatory judicial determination, but a non-adjudicatory determination based on a compromise or settlement, arrived at by the parties, with guidance and assistance from the Lok Adalat. The 'award' of the Lok Adalat does not mean any independent verdict or opinion arrived at by any decision-making process. The 'award' of the Lok Adalat does not mean any independent verdict or opinion arrived at by any decision-making process. The making of the award is merely an administrative act of incorporating the terms of settlement or compromise agree by parties in the presence of the Lok Adalat, in the form of an executable order under the signature and seal of the Lok Adalat. Many sitting or retired judges, while participating in the Lok Adalats as members, tend to conduct the Lok Adalats like Courts, by hearing parties, and imposing their views as to what is just and equitable, on the parties. Sometimes they get carried away and proceed to pass orders on merits, as in this case, even though there is no consensus or settlement. Such acts, instead of fostering alternative dispute resolution through the Lok Adalats, will drive the litigants away from the Lok Adalats. The Lok Adalats should resist their temptation to play the part of judges and constantly strive to function as conciliators. The endeavour and effort of the Lok Adalats should be to guide and persuade the parties, with reference to principles of justice, equity and fair play to compromise and settle the dispute by explaining the pros and cons, strengths and weaknesses, advantages and disadvantages of their respective claim. The order of the Lok Adalat in this case (extracted in para 3), shows that it assumed a judicial role, heard parties, ignored the absence of consensus, and increased the compensation to an extent it considered just and reasonable, by a reasoned order which is adjudicatory in nature. It arrogated to itself the appellate powers of the High Court and 'allowed' the appeal and 'directed' the respondents in the appeal to pay the enhanced compensation of Rs. 62,200 within two months. The order of the Lok Adalat was not passed by consent of parties or in pursuance of any compromise or settlement between the parties. Such an order is not an award of the Lok Adalat. Being contrary to law and beyond the power and jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat, it is void in the eye of the law. Unfortunately, the concerned Lok Adalat which passed the impugned orders, challenged in the writ petitions, has not followed the very concept of the Act of 1987 and usurped jurisdiction beyond power vested in the Lok Adalats. Being contrary to law and beyond the power and jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat, it is void in the eye of the law. Unfortunately, the concerned Lok Adalat which passed the impugned orders, challenged in the writ petitions, has not followed the very concept of the Act of 1987 and usurped jurisdiction beyond power vested in the Lok Adalats. The orders passed the Lok Adalat, since not consistent with the provisions of the law, are liable to be interfered in the writ petition. 13. The contention of learned counsel, Mr. D.K. Biswas that the L.A. Collector has no locus standi to challenge the orders passed by Lok Adalat, does not sound good in view of the fact that the acquisition proceeding taken up by the L.A. Collector was interfered in view of the order passed by the Lok Adalat and further, refuting the argument advanced by learned counsel, Mr. Biswas, learned senior counsel, Mr. Deb presented a copy of notification dated 19th March 1983 issued by Joint Secretary to the Government of India (S.O. 187(E)) which shows that the President of India in exercises of the powers conferred under Article 258 of the Constitution of India with the consent of the Government of Tripura, entrusted the functions of the Central Government to the Government of Tripura in respect of the Land Acquisition Act 1984 to Act on behalf of the Central Government. In view of that notification learned L.A. Collector while exercising jurisdiction under the L.A. Act definitely has the locus standi to challenge the impugned orders, passed by Lok Adalat, before this Court filing writ petitions. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Deb in support of his contention, further referred Section 575 of American Jurisprudence which reads thus: 575. Standing to sue.--One of the doctrines or standards which operates as a limitation upon the availability of judicial review or judicial relief against administrative action is 'standing to sue'. Only a person with a 'legal standing' can resort to the Courts for relief from action of an administrative agency, whether the party resorting to the Court avails himself of a statutory or non-statutory remedy. Involved in 'standing to sue' are the concepts of 'justiciability' and injury or prejudice, standing to sue also involves, or at least in some respects is indistinguishable from, the requirement of finality in the action of the administrative agency. Involved in 'standing to sue' are the concepts of 'justiciability' and injury or prejudice, standing to sue also involves, or at least in some respects is indistinguishable from, the requirement of finality in the action of the administrative agency. The question of a person's legal standing to apply for judicial relief does not touch the merits of a suit, but merely the authority of the Court resorted to entertain the action. A statute providing for judicial review of action of an administrative agency may identify by its specific terms the persons who are entitled to apply for such review, as where it provides that any party may appeal, or it may provide that a 'party in interest', or any person or party 'aggrieved' or 'adversely affected' by such action, or either, is entitled to appeal or file suit, or it may be completely silent as to what persons are entitled to resort to the Courts....... In the cases at hand, the Lok Adalat interfered in the process of a land acquisition proceeding lawfully initiated by the writ petitioner and stalled the acquisition process. Therefore, the Land Acquisition Collector has the right to challenge the action taken by Lok Adalat. Further, in view of GOI notification L.A. Collector is not only a statutory authority but also a representative of the GOI in respect of land acquisition matters. Therefore, the submission of learned counsel, Mr. Biswas does not deserve consideration. 14. In view of the discussions made above, all the writ petitions are allowed. Proceedings initiated by the Lok Adalat, vide Pre-litigative dispute No. 08/2002, 07/2002, 09/2002, 10/2002 and 16/2002 and the impugned orders passed by such Lok Adalat, dated 18.08.2002 (Annexure-6 to the writ petitions) and order dated 08.12.2002 (Annexure-8 to the writ petitions), are set aside and quashed. 15. The writ petitions, accordingly stands disposed of. A copy of the judgment & order be sent to Member Secretary, Tripura State Legal Services Authority.