The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside Lok Adalat awards passed in a land acquisition dispute concerning the acquisition of land in Kommepalli Village for mining operations of Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. The Land Acquisition Officer had passed an award in 2013 determining compensation at Rs 3,48,935 per acre. As disputes existed regarding the persons entitled to the compensation and its apportionment, the matter was referred to the District Judge under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
During the pendency of related proceedings, a coordination meeting was held in 2015 where it was proposed that the disputes be resolved through Lok Adalat. The Lok Adalat subsequently passed 16 awards concerning the acquired land. Several claimants challenged the awards, contending that the settlement did not include all persons who were disputing their entitlement to the compensation.
Aggrieved by the High Court's dismissal of the appellants' challenge to the Lok Adalat award, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court. Setting aside the High Court's decision, the bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra noted that the High Court had erred in upholding the awards passed by the Lok Adalat. The Court observed that the awards did not reflect a genuine agreement under Section 29 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, since all disputing claimants were neither parties nor signatories to the settlement.
The judgment authored by Justice Pardiwala stated: 'The challenge to awards passed by the Lok Adalat in the second writ petition was on the ground that the appellants-claimants did not consent to the settlement drawn by the Lok Adalat. Further, although the challenge to the said awards was pending, yet the High Court, in the third writ petition, directed disbursement of compensation.' The Court added that the High Court erred in directing the disbursement of the compensation awarded by the Lok Adalat.
The Court further observed: 'If at all the Lok Adalat awards were intended to reflect an agreement under Section 29, or a standalone agreement, it could be said to be valid only if concurred by all persons interested in the apportionment, as the particulars of apportionment as mentioned in the award drawn by the Collector is conclusive between the persons who have expressed their agreement in the apportionment.' Emphasising this point, the Court added that a settlement involving only some of the claimants cannot be treated as an agreement binding upon persons who were not parties to it.
As a result, allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and the Lok Adalat awards and remitted the matter to the District Judge for a de novo hearing of the reference. The Court directed that all concerned parties be duly put to notice and that the proceedings be completed, as far as possible, within six months from the date of pronouncement of the judgment.
The Court concluded: '…we have reached the conclusion that we should set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and remit the matter to the Court of Principal District Judge, Khammam, for de novo hearing of reference as expeditiously as possible, not later than six months from the date of the pronouncement of this judgment, by duly putting all the parties concerned to notice in accordance with law. The Court must decide the apportionment reference uninfluenced by any observations. We accordingly pass such order.' The cause title of the case is Singapogu Babu Rao & Ors. Versus Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) & Ors.