Lok Adalat has the power to approve compromise price but cannot give verdict in absence of settlement: Telangana High Court

While quashing an order of a Mandal Legal Services Committee (MLSC) after observing that it was not a compromise/settlement award but was in the nature of an execution petition in respect of a property dispute suit, the Telangana High Court said that the committee had exceeded its jurisdiction. .

In doing so, the Supreme Court reiterated that Lok Adalats, including the MLSC, are for the sole purpose of conciliation and do not have the power to make judicial decisions. For context, a mandal is an administrative unit below the district level, consisting of a group of villages.

Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and another versus Jalour Singh and others a divisional bank of Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice N. Tukaramji in his command said: “…Lok Adalat has no further jurisdiction in the exercise of judicial powers. The role of Lok Adalat is solely to ensure reconciliation between the parties and facilitate a settlement/compromise between them. Lok Adalat only has the power to approve a compromise price. If there is no settlement or compromise then no judgment can be passed by the Lok Adalat and thereafter the matter will go back to the concerned court for proper judgment“.

Then it held: “We have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the Mandal Legal Services Committee has extended its jurisdiction while entertaining and trying the PLC. The Mandal Legal Services Committee or for that matter the Lok Adalats do not have the power to accept petitions where the relief sought is the execution of the judgment and decree“.

One Takur Sumalatha, defendant No. 4, had obtained a decree in 2023 wherein the Civil Court held that she was entitled to 1/3rd share of the disputed property. To enforce the same, respondent No. 4 then approached the Tahsildar seeking compliance of the decree. This prompted defendant No. 4 to file the PLC (pre-litigation case) before the Mandal Legal Services Committee (MLSC).

MLSC held that since there was in the suit a judgment and decree in favor of Defendant No. 4 dated July 24, 2023, there was no reason why Defendant No. 2 should not ensure compliance with the order and there was also would ensure that the The mutation proceedings are completed in favor of defendant No. 4 at the earliest.

After hearing the parties, the MLSC approved the pre-litigation case and directed Defendant No. 2 to redact the name of Defendant No. 4, as well as the names of other defendants in the suit, in the revenue records relating to the ownership of the packing schedule within a period of two weeks. The MLSC also further directed the office of the said Court to prepare the final decree without waiting for respondent No. 4 to file an application for the same.

The petitioners challenged this order in the Supreme Court, arguing that the MLSC exceeded its jurisdiction by adjudicating the case rather than facilitating a settlement or compromise between the parties. It was also submitted that by filing the PLC, defendant No. 4 has succeeded in executing the judgment and decree in the suit at the earliest without initiating execution proceedings.

Referring to the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, the court said that Sections 19 and 20 of the Act provide that Lok Adalats can only entertain cases where the parties agree to a settlement or compromise, or where the court is satisfied that the case has been settled. suitable for reference to the Lok Adalat. It noted that in addition, Sections 11A and 11B establish the Taluk/Mandal Legal Services Committees and define their functions, which are limited to coordinating legal services activities, organizing Lok Adalats and carrying out other functions assigned by the district authority functions.

Considering these legal provisions, the Supreme Court noted that the order issued by the MLSC was not a compromise or settlement award, but rather a direction for the execution of a decision of the civil court. It said that in issuing the order, the MLSC “was beyond the jurisdiction and that which is not conferred on the said Lok Adalat under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987”.

The High Court allowed the petition and set aside the order of the MLSC and the consequent order of the District Collector, Nirmal (of mutation).

WP 12116 of 2024

Counsel for the petitioner: C. Anvesh Kiran

Counsel for respondents: Shashi Kiran Pusluri, SC, TSLSA.

Click here to read/download the order