Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 24 (MEG)

Twes Nongsiej v. State of Meghalaya

2017-04-18

DINESH MAHESHWARI, VED PRAKASH VAISH

body2017
JUDGMENT : Dinesh Maheshwari, J. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the material placed on record, we find no reason whatsoever to entertain this intra-court appeal. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the sum and substance of the matter is that in the proceedings that were pending before the Revenue Board, the matter was placed in the Lok Adalat on 06.12.2014 and the following award came to be made by the Lok Adalat after settlement between the principal contesting parties i.e., the appellant and the respondent No. 3 :- "AWARD 3. 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. Smti. 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 Sd/- Mrs. T. Nongsiej Signature/T.I. of Signature/T.I of Petitioner/Plaintiff/Complainant Defendant/Respondent Witness by me Sd/- S.Chakrawarty, Advocate for A. Sohliya 06/12/14 Sd/- K. Khan Signature of Signature of Member/Conciliator Member/Conciliator Sd/- T. Dkhar Signature of Presiding Officer (Seal of the Authority/Committee)." 3. The petitioner/appellant thereafter, attempted to question the award so made by way of the writ petition on the specious ground that the matter related to the road in question belonging to the Public Works Department ['PWD'] of the Government of Meghalaya and she had no authority to deliver the road belonging to the Public Works Department to the respondent. The petitioner/appellant thereafter, attempted to question the award so made by way of the writ petition on the specious ground that the matter related to the road in question belonging to the Public Works Department ['PWD'] of the Government of Meghalaya and she had no authority to deliver the road belonging to the Public Works Department to the respondent. The petitioner/appellant also suggested in the writ petition that she was an illiterate person and her counsel was engaged in another matter, when this matter was taken up in Lok Adalat; and being nervous when appearing before the Lok Adalat, she could not fathom the proposal nor was made to understand the terms of settlement. The petitioner went to the extent of alleging that without understanding the contents of the order, she signed the proceedings but then, the PWD neither participated nor was made a signatory to the settlement. 4. The learned Single Judge referred to Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 to point out that the award made by the Lok Adalat is final and binding and no appeal lies against such award; and, on this consideration, rejected the prayer made by the petitioner/appellant and dismissed the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant has referred to 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 to submit that any person aggrieved of the award of the Lok Adalat is not altogether remediless and the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could always be maintained. Learned counsel further attempted to submit that the award in question purportedly deals with a public road belonging to the PWD and the petitioner/appellant could not have entered into any settlement in regard thereof. Learned counsel further submitted that in fact, the passage to the house of the petitioner/appellant has been blocked and therefore, she had no option but to approach the Court in the writ jurisdiction. The submissions are without substance and do not make out any case for interference. 6. We are unable to appreciate that the petitioner/appellant seeks to question the award made by the Lok Adalat in her presence with the suggestion as if the terms of settlement were not explained to her. The submissions are without substance and do not make out any case for interference. 6. We are unable to appreciate that the petitioner/appellant seeks to question the award made by the Lok Adalat in her presence with the suggestion as if the terms of settlement were not explained to her. Such kind of cursory suggestion against the sanctity of the Lok Adalat process cannot be countenanced, particularly when the proceedings do bear the signatures of the petitioner/appellant and the signatures of the Presiding Officer and the Conciliator. 7. Secondly, in the present case, we find that by way of settlement, the respondent No.3 had agreed to allow the right of use of 6 feet width of the disputed area to the present petitioner/appellant without interference and the petitioner/appellant agreed not to claim ownership of the disputed area. If the petitioner/appellant has any grievance against the respondent No.3 about compliance of the terms of settlement, obviously, the petitioner/appellant is required to take recourse to the appropriate remedies in accordance with law but cannot question the award itself. 8. The specious ground put forth in challenge to the award in question, that the PWD was not a party to the settlement, remains absolutely without substance for the purpose of this appeal. If at all any department of the Government of Meghalaya carries any grievance as regards this settlement, the grievance has to be ventilated and projected only by the said department and in any case, the petitioner/appellant is not at liberty to challenge the award in question on the basis of a ground which might be available to any such department. 9. In view of the above, we are satisfied that the learned Single Judge has rightly declined the writ jurisdiction in this matter. 10. Consequently, the appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed.