Lok Adalat Has Power To Pass Compromise Award, Cannot Adjudicate In Absence Of Settlement: Telangana High Court
While quashing an order of a Mandal Legal Services Committee (MLSC) after noting that it was not a compromise/settlement award but in the nature of an execution petition pertaining to a property dispute suit, Telangana High Court said that the committee had exceeded its jurisdiction.
In doing so the high court reiterated that Lok Adalats, including the MLSC, are meant solely for conciliation and lack the power to make adjudicatory decisions. For context a mandal is an administrative unit below the district level consisting of a group of villages.
Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in State of Punjab and Another vs. Jalour Singh and Others a division bench of Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice N. Tukaramji in its order said, "...Lok Adalat otherwise lacks jurisdiction in exercising adjudicatory powers. Lok Adalat's role is solely to ensure conciliation between the parties and facilitate settlement /compromise between them. Lok Adalat have only power to pass compromise award. If there is no settlement or compromise, no award can be passed by the Lok Adalat and the case thereafter would go back to the concerned Court for proper adjudication".
It thereafter held, "We have no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that the Mandal Legal Services Committee has extended its jurisdiction while entertaining and adjudicating the P.L.C. The Mandal Legal Services Committee or for that matter the Lok Adalats do not have the power to accept petitions where the relief sought for is implementation of the judgment and decree".
One Takur Sumalatha, the respondent No. 4 had obtained a decree in 2023, wherein the Civil Court held that she was entitled to a 1/3rd share in the disputed suit property. To enforce the same, Respondent No. 4 then approached the Tahsildar seeking compliance of the decree. This led Respondent No. 4 to file the PLC (pre litigation case) before the Mandal Legal Services Committee (MLSC).
MLSC was of the opinion that since there was a judgment and decree in favour of respondent No.4, dated July 24, 2023 in the suit there was no reason why respondent No.2 should not ensure compliance of the order and also ensure that the mutation proceedings are concluded in favour of respondent No.4 at the earliest.
After hearing the parties the MLSC allowed the pre-litigation case and directed the respondent No.2 to mutate the name of respondent No.4 as also names of other defendants in the suit in the revenue records in respect of the Suit schedule property within a period of two weeks. The MLSC further also directed the office of the said Court for preparation of the final decree without waiting for respondent No.4 to file an application for the same.
The petitioners challenged this order before the High Court, contending that the MLSC had exceeded its jurisdiction by adjudicating the matter instead of facilitating a settlement or compromise between the parties. It was also contended the respondent No.4 by filing the P.L.C. has been successful in getting the judgment and decree in the suit to be executed at the earliest without there being any execution proceedings initiated.
Referrring to the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, the court said that Sections 19 and 20 of the Act outline that Lok Adalats can only take up cases where the parties agree to settlement or compromise, or where the court is satisfied that the matter is appropriate for referral to the Lok Adalat. It noted that additionally, Sections 11A and 11B establish the Taluk/Mandal Legal Services Committees and define their functions, which are limited to coordinating legal services activities, organizing Lok Adalats, and performing other functions assigned by the District Authority.
Considering these statutory provisions, the High Court observed that the order passed by the MLSC was not a compromise or settlement award but rather a direction for the execution of a Civil Court's decree. It said that the MLSC in passing the order was in "excess of jurisdiction and also that which is not conferred upon the said Lok Adalat under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987".
Allowing the petition, the High Court set aside the MLSC's order and the consequential order of the District Collector, Nirmal (of mutation).
WP 12116 of 2024
Counsel for petitioner: C. Anvesh Kiran
Counsel for respondents: Shashi Kiran Pusluri, SC, TSLSA.