UNION OF INDIA versus ANANTO (DEAD) AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 877 · Decided: 09-03-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
ANANTO (DEAD) AND ANR. 
MARCH 9, 2007 
[DR.ARIJITPASAYAT AND LOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,JJ.] 
National Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987; S.20/Requisition and 
Acquisition of Immovable Properties Act, 1952; S.8(J)(b): 
Land acquisition-Appointment of an arbitrator-Lok Ada/a/-
A 
B 
·c 
Jurisdiction of-Held: In terms of Section 20 of 1987 Act, Lok Ada/at could 
dispose of a matter by way of compromise or settlement between the parties-
/nstant case could not have been disposed of by Lok Ada/at since it did not 
involve compromise or settlement-Hence, the matter is remitted to High 
Court for decision afresh taking into consideration effect and relevance of D 
judgment of Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. v. Munsha and Ors. 
A writ petition was filed by the respondent No.I before the High Court 
praying for appointment of an abribtrator in terms of Section 8(1 )(b) of the 
Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Properties Act, 1952. Before the 
writ petition was taken up for hearing by the High Court, the matter was E 
referred to Lok Ada lat. The Lok Adalat issued directions to Union of India 
to appoint an arbitrator. Union of India filed an application for recalling the 
order of the Lok Adalat. Lok Adalat recalled the order and sent the matter 
back to the High Court for adjudication. Single Judge of the High Court 
disposed of the petition directing Union oflndia to appoint an arbitrator. The p 
Letters Patent Appeal filed by the Union of India was dismissed by the High 
Court observing that the order of the Lok Adalat had merged with the order 
of Single Judge of the High Court and had therefore, become operative. Hence 
the present appeal. 
Appellant-Union oflndia contended that the direction of the High Court G 
,. ~ 
for appointment of an arbitrator was clearly untenable. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
877 
H 
A 
878 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 3 S.C.R. 
HELD: 1.1. The specific language used in sub-section (3) of Section 20 
of the National Legal Services Authorities Act makes it clear that the Lok 
Ada lat can dispose of a matter by way of a compromise or settlement between 
the parties. Two crucial terms in sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 20 are 
"compromise" and "settlement". The former expression means settlement 
B of differences by mutual concessions. It is an agreement reached by adjustment 
of conflicting or opposing claims by reciprocal modi.fication of demands. The 
word "compromise" implies some element of accommodation on each side. It 
is not apt to describe total surrender. A compromise is always bilateral and 
means mutual adjustment. "Settlement" is termination of legal proceedings 
C by mutual consent The case at hand did not involve compromise or settlement, 
therefor, it could not have been disposed of by Lok Adalat. If no compromise 
or settlement is or could be arrived at, no order can be passed by the Lok 
Ada lat. Therefore, question of merger of Lok Ada lats order does not arise. 
(Para 7) (881-F-G-H; 882-AJ 
D 
Re NFU Development Trust Ltd, (1973) 1 All ER 135, referred to. 
1.2. Both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court 
failed to take note of what has been stated by this Court in the decided case of 
State of Punjab & Ors. v. Shri Ganpat Raj. In the fitness of things, therefore, 
E the matter is remitted to the High Court to hear the writ petition afresh. 
While doing so, the effect and relevance of judgment in Munsha's case shall 
also be considered. It is clarified that no opnion has been expressed on merits 
of the case. (Para 8) [882-B, CJ 
Union of India & Anr. v. Munsha & Ors., [1995) Supp. 4 SCC 660, 
F referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1234 of2007 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.7.2002 of the High Court of 
Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA No. 714 of 2002 of in Civil Writ 
G Petition No. 134511986. 
H 
P.P. Malhotra, ASG, Vineet Malhotra, R.C. Katiyar and Sushma Suri for 
the Appellant. 
Sanjay Sain, Manjusha Wadhwa and Ashok Mathur for the Respondents. 
U. 0.1. v. ANANTO(DEAD)[PASAYAT . .I.) 
879 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
DR. ARIJIT PASAY AT, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench 
of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal, 
filed by the appellant - Union of India and its functionaries. By the impugned B 
order the view expressed by a learned Single Judge was affirmed. 
3. T

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