Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 605 (HP)

Savitri Devi v. Muncipal Council, Rampur Bushahr

2023-12-28

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2023
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside of order dated 27.11.2022, passed by the Lok Adalat held at Rampur Bushahr, in terms whereof, the appeal in issue was decided by the Lok Adalat in the following terms :- “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 settlement. The appellant vide separate statement recorded today has stated that she is ready to settle the claim in case she is allotted plot No.17, by the Municipal Corporation, Rampur and the amount taken in token of rent and security is ordered to be implemented after the possession of the plot is handed over to her. Sh. S.S. Negi, Executive Officer of the Municipal Corporation has agreed to the said statement of the appellant. In view of the statements of the parties recorded today, the appeal stands compromised and the order dated 07.06.2022 passed by the learned trial Court is set aside. The statements of the parties recorded today shall form part of the record. Decree sheet be prepared and file, after completion, be consigned to record room. The parties are informed that the court fee, if any, paid by any of them shall be refunded.” 2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the pleadings in Civil Suit, copy whereof, is appended with the petition as Annexure P-1. He has pointed out that the petitioner was impleaded as defendant No.2, in the Civil Suit. He after taking the Court through the contents of the plaint, as well as the relief prayed for, submitted that though the petitioner was referred in the suit as a proforma defendant, but for all intends and purposes, she was a contesting defendant, as fact of the matter is that the premises in issue are still under the possession of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that after the Civil Suit was dismissed, then in the course of the appeal, which was filed against the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court by the plaintiffs, the matter was taken to the learned Lok Adalat and the impugned award stood passed by the learned Lok Adalat at the back of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that after the Civil Suit was dismissed, then in the course of the appeal, which was filed against the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court by the plaintiffs, the matter was taken to the learned Lok Adalat and the impugned award stood passed by the learned Lok Adalat at the back of the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner was neither aware of any reference of the appeal to the learned Lok Adalat nor there was any amicable settlement arrived at between the parties either in principle or otherwise in terms whereof, the matter stood referred to the learned Lok Adalat. He further submitted that as the proceedings of the learned Lok Adalat which adversely affect the rights of the petitioner were conducted at the back of the petitioner, therefore, the order in issue is liable to be set aside. 3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent-plaintiff submitted that there is no infirmity in the award passed by the learned Lok Adalat as the same does not adversely affect the rights of the petitioner. He has further submitted that the compromise was entered into before the Lok Adalat by the plaintiff and the Municipal Council, i.e., the owner of the premises in dispute and, therefore, as the petitioner happens to be stranger as far as the demised premises are concerned, she has no locus to file and maintain this petition. 4. Mr. Manish Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/Municipal Council submitted that earlier the demised premises were allotted in favour of the petitioner, but, subsequently, this allotment stood cancelled on account of the acts of omission on the part of the petitioner. He submitted that as the terms of the allotment of the shop were not adhered to by the petitioner, therefore, the same was cancelled. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having carefully perused the award passed by the learned Lok Adalat as well as other documents appended with the petition, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned award is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 6. A perusal of the plaint is at least, demonstrative of the fact, that at some stage the property in issue was allotted in favour of the petitioner by the Municipal Council. 6. A perusal of the plaint is at least, demonstrative of the fact, that at some stage the property in issue was allotted in favour of the petitioner by the Municipal Council. Further her contention before this Court is that she continues to be in possession of the demised premises de-hors the factum of her status thereupon. In fact the factum of the possession of the shop with the petitioner has not been disputed before Court by the Municipal Council. Now, if in this background, one peruses the award passed by the learned Lok Adalat, one finds that what transpired there was that a compromise was entered into between the respondent-plaintiff on one hand and the Municipal Council on the other hand, in terms whereof, it was agreed that the possession of the plot stood handed over to the plaintiff. It has not been disputed before the Court that despite the fact that the petitioner was a party in the appeal, her statement was not recorded that she was agreeable to the award as was being passed by the Lok Adalat. That being the case, as the award has civil consequences as far as the petitioner is concerned, in view of the fact that her possession qua demised premises has not been disputed, the learned Lok Adalat erred in passing the award without appreciating that no award could have been passed by it until and unless all the parties to the lis were agreeable to the terms of the settlement. On this count, this petition succeeds. The Impugned award dated 27.11.2022, passed by the Lok Adalat held at Rampur Bushahr, is quashed and set aside and the appeal is remanded back to the learned Appellate Court for adjudication afresh. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for respondents-plaintiffs prays that the Appellate Court be directed to decide the appeal within some reasonable time. Ordered accordingly. Let endeavor be made by the Court below to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible and in all probabilities before 30th April, 2024. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.