Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 11 (MEG)

Twes Nongseij v. State of Meghalaya

2017-03-17

S.R.SEN

body2017
JUDGMENT : S.R. Sen, J. Heard Mr. K. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. G.S. Massar, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. L.S. Darnei, learned counsel and Mr. S.C. Chakrawarty, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Ms. M. Mahanta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and Mr. S. Sen Gupta, learned Addl. Sr. GA for the respondents No. 1 & 2. 2. The brief fact of the petitioner's case in a nutshell is that: "This is an application under Article 226 for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus, Certiorari and or any other writ order or direction assailing the impugned Award dated 06.12.2014 passed in Revenue proceeding MBR/RA. No. 4 of 2014 at Lok Adalat held on 6.12.2014. The impugned Award being passed in complete non appreciation of the fact that dispute in question over the public road leading to Petitioner and Respondents residence is actually a PWD road and interestingly, the Public Works Department was not even represented before the Conciliators before passing of the impugned Award. Furthermore, the Petitioner being illiterate was neither explained nor made to understand the contents of the Award thereby inducing her to concede to the award without understanding the meaning and implications that may flow from the award. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned Award dated 06.12.2014 passed in Revenue proceeding MBR/RA. No. 4 of 2014 at the Lok Adalat held on 6.12.2014, the Petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court for redressal for her genuine grievance." 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that, initially when the petitioner made a compromise before the Lok Adalat which was held on 06.12.2014, she could not understand that she may find inconvenient with parting of the land and signed the Compromise/Settlement Award with the respondent and accordingly, the settlement Award was passed on 06.12.2014 in Revenue proceeding MBR/RA. No. 4 of 2014, whereby the dispute between the parties was settled. The learned counsel for the petitioner further prayed that since the petitioner could not understand the contents of the Award, she will face difficulty, so the Award passed by the Lok Adalat may be set aside. He also argued that the PWD, Government of Meghalaya, Shillong was not represented at the time of passing the Award. The learned counsel for the petitioner further prayed that since the petitioner could not understand the contents of the Award, she will face difficulty, so the Award passed by the Lok Adalat may be set aside. He also argued that the PWD, Government of Meghalaya, Shillong was not represented at the time of passing the Award. To support his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and another v. Jalour Singh and others: (2008) 2 SCC 660 . 4. On perusal of the said judgment referred above, to my humble understanding, it is understood that, once the dispute is settled with consent, it has no scope further to come back to the Court as the decision of the Lok Adalat shall be binding upon the parties and they cannot deviate themselves. Therefore, I am of the considered view that since there is no defect noticed in the Award, the petitioner has no right to approach the Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. On the other hand, Mr. G.S. Massar and Mr. S.C. Chakrawarty, learned Sr. counsels for the respondent No. 3 assailed that, once the matter is settled before the Lok Adalat with full consent of the parties, the question of coming back to the Court on the issue does not arise and it is barred under Section 21 of Law Relating to Lok Adalats (Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987). So, the petition may be closed. 6. After hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the Award dated 06.12.2014 carefully, which is at Annexure-13 of the writ petition and after going through the Award, I do not find any reason to record that the Award was without the consent of the parties or that there was any drawback in the Award. For ready reference, the said Award dated 06.12.2014 is reproduced herein below: "AWARD The dispute between the parties having been referred for determination to the Lok Adalat and the parties having compromised/settled the case/matter, the following award is passed in terms of the settlement. 1. For ready reference, the said Award dated 06.12.2014 is reproduced herein below: "AWARD The dispute between the parties having been referred for determination to the Lok Adalat and the parties having compromised/settled the case/matter, the following award is passed in terms of the settlement. 1. I, Smt. Amelia Sohliya do hereby agreed to allow the right of use of 6(six) feet width out of the disputed area of 39.47 Sq.metres permanently to Mrs/Smt. Twes Nongsiej (Respondent) without any future interference by me or my legal heir to the said area settled today. 2. I, Smt. Twes Nongsiej and my future legal heir do hereby agreed and accepted to the said settlement and shall have the right of use to the said area without interference from Smt. Amelia Sohlia and shall have no claim/right to the ownership of the said portion of the disputed area stated above. Upon hearing both parties and upon perusal of materials placed before this Lok Adalat, we are convinced that the settlement is fair, free from collusion, coercion, undue influence being just, fair and reasonable as per terms mentioned above. The parties are informed that the Court fee, if any, paid by any of them shall be refunded. Sd/- Mrs. A.Soliya Signature/T.I of Signature/T.I of Petitioner/Plaintiff/Complainant Sd/- Mrs. T. Nongsiej Defendant/Respondent Witness by me. Sd/- S. Chakrawarty, Advocate for A. Sohliya 6/12/2014 Signature of Member/Conciliator Sd/- K. Khan Signature of Member/Conciliator Sd/- T.Dkhar Signature of Presiding Officer 7. Now, looking into the settled principle of law, I would like to look back to Section 21 of Law Relating to Lok Adalats (Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987) and the same is reproduced herein below: "21. Award of the 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." In sub Section 2 of Section 21, it is clearly mentioned that, "every Award made by the 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." 8. On perusal of Section 21 sub Section 2, it is amply clear that, once the matter is settled between the parties at the Lok Adalat, the matter cannot be agitated further. 9. With this observation and direction the instant writ petition is dismissed and stands disposed of.