Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 674 (HP)

Lachhmi Chand @ Chandu, S/o Sh. Chamaru v. Land Acquisition Collector, HPPWD Mandi, District Mandi, HP.

2021-09-07

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2021
ORDER : By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, a prayer has been made for setting aside the award passed by the National Lok Adalat, on 9.12.2017, on the ground that the award so passed by the National Lok Adalat, is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the petitioner had never acquiescenced to any settlement of the issue by way of conciliation, nor the learned counsel who made a statement before the National Lok Adalat compromising the matter on his behalf was authorized to do so. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the award passed by the National Lok Adalat as well as the record of the case. 3. The award under challenge is dated 09.12.2017. A perusal of the record demonstrates that Sh. Surinder Verma, learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the petitioner, made a statement before the Lok Adalat that as the State was intending to withdraw the appeal filed by it, the petitioner be also permitted to withdraw the cross-objections filed by him. It was on the basis of said statement made before the Lok Adalat that the award was passed by it. 4. Record further reveals that thereafter on the strength of the award, so passed by the National Lok Adalat dated 9.12.2017, the petitioner Laxmi Chand filed a miscellaneous application for release of the amount. Incidently, in this application, no averments were made by the petitioner that the cross-objections which stood filed by him, were wrongly withdrawn on the basis of a statement of learned counsel, who was not authorized by him to give such statement and the application was being filed by him by reserving his right to assail the award passed by the National Lok Adalat, on the ground on which the present petition has been filed. 5. This demonstrates that filing of the present petition is nothing but an after thought and in this view of the matter, the Court does not intends to agree with the contention of the petitioner that the award so passed was without his acquiescence. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.