no room for doubt about the role of the Lok Adalat, the nature of the
award and the procedure to be followed by the Lok Adalat when a
matter is settled. It can be summarised thus:
(a) The Lok Adalat only guides and assists the parties to reach
a settlement or compromise.
(b) It is the duty of the Lok Adalat to ensure that the parties
fully understood the terms of the settlement or compromise before it
is recorded.
(c) The terms of the settlement or the compromise shall be
reduced into writing.
(d) The award shall be written in regional language used in the
local courts or in English. It shall contain the particulars of the case,
namely, the number of the case, the name of the court, the names
of the parties, date of receipt of the case by the Adalat, the number
assigned to it in its permanent register and the date of the
settlement.
(e) Both parties shall sign or affix their thumb impressions in it.
(f) Where the parties are represented by counsel, they shall
also be required to sign the settlement.
(g) The members of the Lok Adalat shall countersign it.
(h) The document containing the terms of the settlement or
compromise becomes an award when the parties sign or affix their
thumb impressions in it and the members of the Lok Adalat counter
sign it.
To this it may be added that if there is a provision for payment
of any sum, it shall be expressed in figures as well as words.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016
OP(C).No. 2696 of 2015 (O)
K.S.SUNIL,
Vs
SHERLY,
Validity of three awards passed by Lok Adalat under Section
21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987 on a reference made
to it in three suits is under challenge.
2. The picture that emerges from the facts relating to the
proceedings before the Lok Adalat, of which one of the members
was a judicial officer and the other an advocate, is a mosaic of
callousness, casual approach, disrespect for the statutory
procedure, breach of the rules of grammar of the language and
expressions which do not make any sense. It has catapulted the
parties to the suits, who are members of a family, into a
controversy which is worse than the one which is the cause of
action for the suits.
3. The petitioner is the brother of the respondents. They and
their mother, Padmavathy, had in their joint ownership 13 cents of
land. In a partition that took place in 1992 five cents was allotted
to the petitioner and eight cents jointly to the respondents and the
mother. After the death of the mother the petitioner filed
O.S.No.2291 of 2014 in Munsiff Court, Kodungallur for partition of
the right of the mother and separate allotment of his share in it.
Respondents filed O.S.No.2936 of 2014 claiming exclusive title to
above said 8 cents and praying for fixation of its boundary. On the
allegation that in the partition deed of 1992 some mistakes crept into
the description of the properties the petitioner filed O.S.No.165 of
2015 for rectification of the deed.
4. The disputes between the parties were referred to Lok
Adalat. At the Adalat the disputes were settled and Exts P7, P8 and
P9 awards were passed, which are extracted below.
Award in O.S.No.2936 of 2014
"Both parties present. Discussed. Matter
settled. The plaintiff agreed to execute and
register release deed in respect of 13 cents of
property situated in Sy.No.580/1 of Mothala
village(1330/1974), in favour of defendant on a
consideration of 30 lakhs. The plaintiff agreed to
vacate the plaint schedule property in getting
consideration and agreed to execute and register
release deed or any other deed of their choice on
or before 31.12.2015. Expenses for the
execution shall bear the defendant. Award
passed."
Award in O.S.No.2291 of 2014
"Both parties present. Matter settled in
view of award passed in O.S.No.2936 of 2014.
Award in O.S.No.2936 of 2014 in all connection
matter."
Award in O.S.No.165 of 2015
"Both parties present. Discussed. Matter
settled in view of Award passed in O.S.No.2936
of 2014".
5. The main ground stated in this Original Petition is that it is
not the terms of the compromise the parties entered into which are
recorded in Ext P7 Award. It is specifically stated that the amount the
petitioner agreed to pay the respondents was Rs.13,00,000/-(Rupees
Thirteen lakhs only) and not Rs.30,00,000/-(Rupees Thirty lakhs
only) as stated in Ext P6 award.
6. Heard Sri Babu Karukapadath and Sri K.B.Pradeep learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondents
respectively.
7. The function of a Lok Adalat organised under Section 19 of
the Legal Services Authority Act 1987 (hereinafter called the Act ) is
only to help the parties to the dispute arrive at a compromise or
settlement, which is seen from Section 20(3) of the Act which is
extracted below:
"Where any case is referred to a Lok
Adalat under sub-section (1) or where a
reference has been made to it under sub-section
(2), the Lok Adalat shall proceed to dispose of
the case or matter and arrive at a compromise
or settlement between the parties."
8. The Adalat cannot enter a finding. It can only record the
compromise or settlement between the parties. Section 20(4) of the
Act is relevant in this context. It runs as follows:
"Every Lok Adalat shall, while determining any
reference before it under this Act, act with
utmost expedition to arrive at a compromise or
settlement between the parties and shall be
guided by the principles of justice, equity, fair
play and other legal principles."
9. Adalat cannot forgo the principles of fair play in helping the
parties arrive at a compromise or settlement. The principle that it is
not sufficient that justice is done but it should appear to have been
done applies to the proceedings in the Lok Adalat also.
10. It is to be borne in mind that the award passed by a Lok
Adalat is final. Sub sections (1) (2) and (4) of Section 22E are the
relevant provisions in the Act, which are as follows:
"22E. Award of Permanent Lok Adalat
to be final-(1) Every award of the Permanent
Lok Adalat under this Act made either on merit
or in terms of a settlement agreement shall be
final and binding on all the parties thereto and
on persons claiming under them.
(2) Every award of the Permanent Lok
Adalat under this Act shall be deemed to be a
decree of a civil court.
(3) xxx xxx xxx
(4) Every award made by the Permanent
Lok Adalat under this Act shall be final and shall
not be called in question in any original suit,
application or execution proceeding.
(5)xxx xxx xxx
11. The nature and the effect of an award passed by Lok Adalat
was considered by the Supreme Court in P.T.Thomas v. Thomas
Job (2005) 6 SCC 478 = AIR 2005 SC 3575). The apex court has
observed:
"The Lok Adalat shall proceed and dispose of
cases and arrive at a compromise or
settlement by following legal principles, equity
and natural justice. In a Lok Adalat award the
endeavor is only to see that the disputes are
narrowed down and make the final settlement
so that the parties are not again driven to
further litigation or any dispute. Though the
award of a Lok Adalat is not the result of a
contest on merits, just as a regular suit by a
court in a regular trial is, however, it is as
equal and on a par with a decree on
compromise and will have the same binding
effect and be conclusive. The award passed by
the Lok Adalat is the decision of the court itself
though arrived at by the simpler method of
conciliation instead of the process of
arguments in court. The effect is the same. The
award of Lok Adalat is final and permanent
which is equivalent to a decree executable, and
the same is an ending to the litigation among
the parties."
12. When the award cannot be challenged in a suit or execution
proceedings or even in appeal the Lok Adalat should make sure that
its proceedings are transparent and not vitiated by procedural
illegalities or irregularities. Its proceedings should inspire confidence
in the public, failing which the very existence of the institution will be
at peril. To ensure its credibility, Lok Adalat shall comply with the
procedure prescribed by the statues scrupulously.
13. In exercise of the powers given to it, the National Legal
Services Authority, which is the central authority, constituted under
a Section 3 of the Act has made the National Legal Services Authority
(Lok Adalats) Regulations, 2009.
14. Regulation No.17, which is relevant, runs thus:
17. Award-(1) Drawing up of the award is
merely an administrative act by incorporating the
terms of settlement or compromise agreed by
the parties under the guidance and assistance
from Lok Adalat.
(2) When both parties sign or affix their
thumb impression and the members of the Lok
Adalat countersign it, it becomes an award (see
a specimen at Appendix I). Every award of the
Lok Adalat shall be categorical and lucid and
shall be written in regional language used in the
local courts or in English. It shall also contain
particulars of the case, viz., case number, name
of court and names of parties, date of receipt,
register number assigned to the case in the
permanent register (maintained as provided
under regulation 20) and date of settlement.
Wherever the parties are represented by
counsel, they should also be required to sign the
settlement or award before the members of the
Lok Adalat affix their signature.
(3) xxx xxx xxx
(4)xxx xxx xxx
(5). Member of the Lok Adalat shall ensure
that the parties affix their signatures only after
fully understanding the terms of settlement
arrived at and recorded. The members of the Lok
Adalat shall also satisfy themselves about the
following before affixing their signatures:-
(a) that the terms of settlement are not
unreasonable or illegal or one-sided; and
(b) that the parties have entered into the
settlement voluntarily and not on account of any
threat, coercion or undue influence.
15. The language of the regulation is so explicit that there is
no room for doubt about the role of the Lok Adalat, the nature of the
award and the procedure to be followed by the Lok Adalat when a
matter is settled. It can be summarised thus:
(a) The Lok Adalat only guides and assists the parties to reach
a settlement or compromise.
(b) It is the duty of the Lok Adalat to ensure that the parties
fully understood the terms of the settlement or compromise before it
is recorded.
(c) The terms of the settlement or the compromise shall be
reduced into writing.
(d) The award shall be written in regional language used in the
local courts or in English. It shall contain the particulars of the case,
namely, the number of the case, the name of the court, the names
of the parties, date of receipt of the case by the Adalat, the number
assigned to it in its permanent register and the date of the
settlement.
(e) Both parties shall sign or affix their thumb impressions in it.
(f) Where the parties are represented by counsel, they shall
also be required to sign the settlement.
(g) The members of the Lok Adalat shall countersign it.
(h) The document containing the terms of the settlement or
compromise becomes an award when the parties sign or affix their
thumb impressions in it and the members of the Lok Adalat counter
sign it.
To this it may be added that if there is a provision for payment
of any sum, it shall be expressed in figures as well as words.
16. Ext P7 award has two sheets. The first one is a printed
form. Apart from the signatures of the members of the Lok Adalat
three signatures appear on it. The identity of the persons who put
the signatures is not shown in it. But it is admitted that they are the
parties to the suit. The judicial officer and the advocate who were the
members of the Lok Adalat have put their signatures below the
signatures of the parties. It may be mentioned that even the name of
the judicial officer is not correctly written. The signature of the
counsel of any of the parties is not seen anywhere. No part of the
settlement appears on this sheet. Even the names of all the parties
to the proceedings are not mentioned but, only of one of the
plaintiffs, and of the defendant; nor their addresses.
17. The terms of the settlement allegedly made by the parties
are contained in the second sheet. Apparently, this is an independent
document. It is a type written one. There are several corrections
made in ink. Though there are two plaintiffs, singular is used as if
there is only one plaintiff. The parties have not put their signatures in
this sheet, nor their counsel. It bears only the signatures of the
judicial officer and the advocate who constituted the Lok Adalat. The
amount which the petitioner is shown to have agreed to pay is not
given in words, but only in figures.
18. I have no doubt that this is not a solitary incident. I came
across an award passed by Lok Adalat in which the parties came to
an 'agreement' with regard to an amount payable by one of the
parties to the other. But the amount was not shown in the award, nor
the means to ascertain it. A division bench of this court in
Rajagopala Rao G.K. and another v. State Police Chief and
Others (2016(3) KHC 917) took a serious note of similar
irregularities committed by another Lok Adalat. The division bench
held:
"But we stumbled across a glaring
illegality in the manner in which the earlier civil
proceedings between the contesting parties
were handled in a Lok Adalath constituted
under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987
(in short, "the Act"). We are terribly disturbed
by the fact that vagueness in the terms of
settlement arrived at between the parties (that
too relatives) in a Lok Adalath is the root cause
for the subsequent disputes between them.
Even now they are unable to harmonise their
relationship and restore cordiality. If anybody
blames the handlers of the Lok Adalath for
prolonged agony of the parties, no one will be
able to defend them for palpable reasons."
The division bench has directed that Lok Adalats shall see that the
awards passed "are not only legal, but also confirming to the norms
prescribed for a decree with all the required details in clear and
explicit terms".
19. About more than one century ago in Taylor v. Taylor
(1875)1 Ch D 426) it was held that where a power is given to do a
certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in that way or
not at all and other methods of performance are necessarily
forbidden. This rule was approved by the Privy Council in Nazir
Ahmad v King.Emperor (AIR 1936 PC 253(2) and has been
followed by the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Santilal (AIR
1969 SC 634), Kashmir University v. Mohammed Yasin (AIR
1974 SC 238), Ramchandra Keshav Adke (Dead) by Lrs. v.
Govind Joti Chavare and others (AIR 1975 SC 915) and
Sampuran Singh v. State of Punjab(AIR 1982 SC 1407) and by
this court in Lakshmikutty Amma v. Vijayalakshmikutty (1992
(2) KLT 341).
20. Regulation 17 (supra) requires that the award shall be in
writing and both parties shall sign it or affix their thumb impressions
in it. This is a provision similar to the one contained in Order 23 Rule
3 C.P.C, which also directs that the compromise shall be in writing
and signed by the parties.
21. In Gurpreet Singh v. Chatur Bhuj Goel (AIR 1988 SC
400) the Supreme Court held that the direction that the agreement
should be reduced into writing and signed by the parties cannot be
dispensed with. If this requirement is not met, the court shall
proceed with the matter as if there is no compromise. The object of
the provision is to prevent false and frivolous pleas that a suit has
been adjusted wholly or in part by a lawful agreement or
compromise, the apex court has observed. In K.Venkatachala Bhat
and another v. Krishna Nayak (JT 2005(3) SC 161) the
Supreme Court held that the effect of Order 23 Rule 2 C.P.C is that if
the compromise is not signed by the parties, it cannot be recorded by
the court.
22. The discussion made above compels me to hold that Ext P7
is not an award passed by the Lok Adalat in the eye of law since
there is no means to ascertain whether the petitioner agreed to the
terms recorded in it, which is the result of violation of mandatory
provisions in the relevant statutes. Consequently, Exts P8 and P9 are
also invalid. The trial court shall take up the suits and proceed with
their trial. But if the parties want to refer the dispute to Lok Adalat
again, the court shall comply with the request.
In the result, this Petition is allowed. Exts P7, P8 and P9 awards
are declared invalid. The trial court is directed to take up the suits
and proceed with their trial. But if the parties want to refer the
dispute to Lok Adalat again, the court shall comply with the request.
Sd/-
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
JUDGE
No comments:
Post a Comment