NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NOIDA) versus YUNUS & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 11 S.C.R. 923 · Decided: 03-02-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.M. JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
923
   [2022] 11 S.C.R. 923
923
NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY (NOIDA)
v.
YUNUS & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 901 of 2022)
FEBRUARY 03, 2022
[K. M. JOSEPH AND
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.]
Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – ss.20-22 – Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.28A, 26 – Whether the Award passed by
a Lok Adalat u/s.20 of the 1987 Act can form the basis for
redetermination of compensation as contemplated u/s.28A of the
the 1894 Act – Held: Jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat u/s.20 of LSA
Act is to facilitate a settlement of disputes between the parties in a
case, it has no adjudicatory role – The Lok Adalat by virtue of the
express provisions is only a facilitator of settlement and compromise
in regard to matters which are referred to it – An Award passed by
the Lok Adalat under 1987 Act is the culmination of a non-
adjudicatory process – The provisions contained in s.21 by which
the Award is treated as if it were a decree is intended only to clothe
the Award with enforceability – The legal fiction that the Award is to
be treated as a decree goes no further – Further, the basis for
invoking s.28A of the 1894 Act is adjudication by the Court as
defined in the Act –Award passed by the Lok Adalat cannot be said
to be an award passed under Part III of the 1894 Act – An award
under Part III of the Act contemplates grounds or reasons and
therefore, adjudication is contemplated and s.26(2) of the Act is
self-explanatory – Not only must it be an award passed as a result
of the adjudication but it must be passed by ‘the Court’ allowing
compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the collector –
The word ‘Court’ has been defined in the Act as the Principal Civil
Court of original jurisdiction unless the appropriate Government
has appointed a Special Judicial Officer to perform judicial functions
of the court under this Act – The Court is not the same as a Lok
Adalat – An application u/s. 28A of the Act cannot be maintained
on the basis of an award passed by the Lok Adalat u/s.20 of the
LSA Act.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
924
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 11 S.C.R.
Interpretation of Statutes – Legal Fiction – Interpretation of
– Held: When a legal fiction is employed by the legislature, it becomes
a duty of the Court to interpret it and to give it meaning – In gleaning
its meaning, the Court is duty bound to ascertain the purpose of
this legislative device.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat under Section
20 is to facilitate a settlement of disputes between the parties in
a case. It has no adjudicatory role. It cannot decide a lis. All that
it can do is to bring about a genuine compromise or settlement.
Sub-Section (4) of Section 20 is important insofar as the law giver
has set out the guiding principles for a Lok Adalat. The principles
are justice, equality, fair play and other legal principles. What
section 28A contemplates is a redetermination of compensation
under an award passed under Part III. Part III takes in Section
23. Section 23 deals with the matters to be taken into
consideration. Various aspects including the market value on the
date of the notification under Section 4(1) are indicated. What we
wish to emphasise is that elements of Section 23 are not in
consonance as such with the guiding principles set out in Section
19(4) of the ‘1987 Act’ which are to guide a Lok Adalat. When
the Court deals with the matter under Section 18, in other words,
it is bound to look into the evidence and arrive at findings based
on the evidence applying the legal principles which have been
enunciated and arrive at the compensation. While it may be true
that there is reference to ‘other legal principles’ in Section 19(4)
of the 1987 Act, the Lok Adalat also can seek light from the
principles of justice, equity, and fair play. The Lok Adalat by virtue
of the express provisions is only a facilitator of settlement and
compromise in regard to matters which are referred to it. It has
no adjudicatory role. [Paras 26, 27][944-C-H]
State of Punjab and Another. v. Jalour Singh and Others
(2008) 2 SCC 660 : [2008] 1 SCR 922; Union of India
v. Ananto (Dead) & Anr. (2007) 10 SC 748 : [2007] 3
SCR 877 – relied on.
1.2 A plea founded on estoppel arising out of a consent
decree or from an Award passed by a Lok Adalat which can
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
925
perhaps be even likened to a consent decision cannot be the
basis for redetermination of the compensation. What Section 28A
indeed insists is

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.