The Supreme Court docket on Wednesday (August 19) put aside Lok Adalat awards handed in a land acquisition dispute, holding that the awards couldn’t be sustained as they didn’t mirror a real settlement beneath Part 29 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, since all of the disputing claimants have been neither events nor signatories to the settlement.
“…the Excessive Court docket in its impugned judgment erred in upholding the awards handed by the Lok Adalat. The awards don’t mirror a real settlement beneath Part 29 of the Act, 1894, since all disputing claimants weren’t events or signatories thereto.”, noticed a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra.
The case arose from the acquisition of land in Kommepalli Village for mining operations of Singareni Collieries Firm Ltd. The Land Acquisition Officer handed an award in 2013 figuring out compensation at ₹3,48,935 per acre. As disputes existed concerning the individuals entitled to the compensation and its apportionment, the matter was referred to the District Decide beneath Sections 30 and 31 of the 1894 Act.
Throughout the pendency of associated proceedings, a coordination assembly was held in 2015, the place it was proposed that the disputes be resolved by Lok Adalat. The Lok Adalat subsequently handed 16 awards regarding the acquired land. A number of claimants challenged the awards, contending that the settlement didn’t embrace all individuals who have been disputing their entitlement to the compensation.
Aggrieved by the Excessive Court docket’s dismissal of the Appellants’ problem to the Lok Adalat award, an enchantment was filed earlier than the Supreme Court docket.
Setting apart the Excessive Court docket’s choice, the judgment authored by Justice Pardiwala famous that the Excessive Court docket had failed to understand that the awards didn’t characterize a legitimate settlement beneath Part 29 as a result of all of the disputing claimants had not participated within the settlement or signed the awards.
“The problem to awards handed by the Lok Adalat within the second writ petition was on the bottom that the appellants-claimants didn’t consent to the settlement drawn by the Lok Adalat. Additional, though the problem to the mentioned awards was pending, but the Excessive Court docket, within the third writ petition, directed disbursement of compensation.”, the Court docket mentioned, declaring that the Excessive Court docket erred in directing the disbursement of the compensation awarded by the Lok Adalat.
“If in any respect the Lok Adalat awards have been supposed to mirror an settlement beneath Part 29, or a standalone settlement, it could possibly be mentioned to be legitimate provided that concurred by all individuals within the apportionment, because the particulars of apportionment as talked about within the award drawn by the Collector is conclusive between the individuals who’ve expressed their settlement within the apportionment.”, the Court docket added, emphasising {that a} settlement involving solely a number of the claimants can’t be handled as an settlement binding upon individuals who weren’t events to it.
Consequently, permitting the enchantment, the Court docket put aside the Excessive Court docket’s judgment and the Lok Adalat awards and remitted the matter to the District Decide for a de novo listening to of the reference.
The Court docket directed that each one involved events be duly put to note and that the proceedings be accomplished, so far as potential, inside six months from the date of pronouncement of the judgment.
“…we now have reached the conclusion that we should always put aside the impugned judgment and order handed by the Excessive Court docket and remit the matter to the Court docket of Principal District Decide, Khammam, for de novo listening to of reference as expeditiously as potential, not later than six months from the date of the pronouncement of this judgment, by duly placing all of the events involved to note in accordance with legislation. The Court docket should determine the apportionment reference uninfluenced by any observations. We accordingly cross such order.”, the Court docket famous.
Trigger Title: SINGAPOGU BABU RAO & ORS. VERSUS SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LAND ACQUISITION) & ORS.
Quotation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 831
Click here to download judgment
Look:
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gaichangpou Gangmei, AOR Mr. Gaichangpou Gangmei, Adv. Mr. Arjun D. Singh, Adv. Mr. Aayush, Adv. Mr. Rajat Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Lalit Mohan, Adv. Ms. Nisha Pandey, Adv. Mr. Ishat Singh, Adv. Mr. Maitreya Mahaley, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Anurag Dayal Mathur, Adv. Mr. P. Parmeswaran, AOR Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, AOR Mr. Ayush Anand, AOR Mr. Siddharth Nayak, Adv. Mr. Raghav Khanna, Adv. Mr. Vibhu Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Monu Kumar, Adv.
