(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records determining to set-aside/quash the Lok Adalat Award bearing number LAC No. 327/2018 dated 25.07.2018 as it does not bear the consent of this petitioner to record the settlement and consequently direct the first respondent to withdraw the subsequent LAOP No. 60 to 62/2018 on the file of Sub-Court, Ponneri.)

1. The writ petition is filed challenging the Award of the Lok Adalat made in LAC.No.327 of 2018, whereby LAOP.No.41 of 2008 was disposed of by way of compromise between the parties. The terms of settlement reads as under:

                     “Claimants 1 to 7 and counsel present. Government Pleader also present. Joint compromise memo filed and recorded, read over to the claimant and admitted to be correct, joint compromise treated as part and parcel of the award. Award is passed in terms of compromise memo. LAOP is settled before lok-Adalat.”

2. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that it is for the petitioner’s benefit, the land was acquired. Therefore, he would fairly submit that any additional financial burden has to be borne out only by the petitioner. Though the petitioner was a party in the LAOP, no representative of the petitioner has signed the Award and thus, the recording of the memorandum of compromise by the Lok Adalat is illegal. The petitioner has no knowledge about the compromise and thus, LAOP.No.41 of 2008 ought not to have been disposed of without the petitioner agreeing for any terms in the said memorandum of compromise, which was entered into only by the claimants 1 to 7. The petitioner company also did not specifically authorise the Government Pleader to sign on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, the matter requires interference by this Court.

3. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that even though the Government Pleader has signed the compromise memo, the Land Acquisition Officer did not take part in the Lok Adalat and he did not sign the compromise memo. He would also submit that they have already initiated criminal proceedings for the collusion between the respondents, by which they stage-managed to get higher compensation.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of 2nd and 3rd respondents would submit that since there was inter se claim between the parties, the Land Acquisition Officer has deposited the amount and only by considering the same, that too in the presence of the Government Pleader, the amicable settlement between the parties was recorded in the Lok Adalat and the LAOP was disposed of. There is absolutely no commission or omission in the entire affair and the Lok Adalat had passed the Award, after due application of mind.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 6th respondent would submit that the 6th respondent is a senior citizen and he is unable to run form pillar to post, thereby agreeing for the amicable settlement.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 7th respondent would submit that the 7th respondent is neither a party to the Lok Adalat settlement nor he was the party respondent in the LAOP. He has unnecessarily been arrayed as a respondent in the instant case, merely because a sale deed has been relied upon in the connected LAOPs, wherein false averments have been made as against the 7th respondent. By relying on a judgment of this Court in the case of The State of Madras v. B.V.Subramania Iyer [AIR 1962 MADRAS 313], he prays for imposition of cost against the petitioner herein.

7. In reply, the learned Additional Advocate General would submit that in the connected LAOP, which was filed for enhancement of the Award, undue advantage is taken on account of the present Award and the sale deed was orchestrated and registered only for the purpose of claiming additional compensation. Therefore, when claims are made relating to the sale deed, the 7th respondent was impleaded as a pro forma party.

8. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.

9. The fact that LAOP No.41 of 2008 arises out of Section 30 reference is neither denied by the learned Additional Advocate General nor by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the private respondents, it can be seen that it is a dispute inter se between the private parties. For this proposition, it is appropriate to extract paragraph 4 of the judgment in State of Madras (cited supra).

                     “(4) The learned counsel for the respondent (claimant) urges that the reference itself was incompetent, because there was really no “dispute” within the meaning of section 30; the claimant alone made the actual claim and not the other benamidars. I do not think that this view is at all sustainable. The word “dispute” is used in the context of that section in a wide and not a literal sense, and implies any controversy as to title, whether as between the actual claimants, or as appearing from the documents made available by the Government. It is obvious that when the Government exercises its powers of eminent domain and acquires property, public funds have to be utilised for the payment of compensation to the true owner, and not merely to any claimant who cares to appear on the scene. The Government have a special responsibility in this regard, and cannot later take refuge behind the pretext that the compensation was paid to the claimant who actually appeared while others did not appear. So long as that is the situation the acquiring officer has a right to make such a reference, even if a dispute or controversy as to title arises on the documents before him. He cannot be made liable for costs, and it is the party who has to bear the costs incurred in establishing the title of the party to receive the compensation amount.”

10. The learned Additional Advocate General relied upon a judgement of the High Court of Karnataka in the case of Smt.Shaila and another v. The Managing Director, ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd., Mumbai [W.P.No.102733 of 2021, dated 25.03.2026] and contended that, in the absence of a proper authorization to the counsel and in the absence of the parties being represented, the Lok Adalat Award is not complete. I am not interfering with the Award of the Lok Adalat, since the dispute is substantially between the claimants. The clauses or the terms of agreement will only bind the parties to the memorandum of compromise and merely because the Award has been passed, it cannot be taken as if the writ petitioner or the 1st respondent had consented to the terms of agreement. LAOP.No.41 of 2008 is pure and simple with reference to the apportionment of the Award, which is agreed by the respondents 2 to 6 between themselves and therefore, it will be binding inter se between them. WP.No.34685 of 2024

11. With reference to the other contention of the private respondents that the sale deed is completely genuine and has been relied upon in various other proceedings to enhance compensation, contrasted against the Land Acquisition Officer's and petitioner company's claim that it was orchestrated and falsely registered solely to inflate the claim, this Court is of the view that it is left open to the parties to canvas these claims in the appropriate proceedings. In this writ petition, this Court is concerned solely with the validity of the Lok Adalat Award. Therefore, except to clarify that the Lok Adalat Award was passed only to dispose of the reference, inasmuch as the claimants have ironed out their differences and arrived at a compromise that remains binding between them, the prayer in the writ petition to set aside the Award itself is rejected.

12. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the prayer for costs is also denied, and costs are made easy. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.