# Sant Ram v. D.D.C., Faizabad

- **Citation:** (2021) 9 ILRA 1090
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-09-22
- **Case number:** Consolidation No. 359 of 1998
- **Bench:** Ravi Nath Tilhari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sant-ram-v-d-d-c-faizabad-47335
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Civil Law - Legal Services Authorities
Act, 1987 - Section 20 - in Lok Adalat
matter can be decided only with the
compromise or settlement between the
parties - in absence of any compromise
or settlement between parties matter
cannot be decided on merits - if no
settlement takes place in Lok Adalat
then the matter should be sent to the
court concerned, for decision

In Lok Adalat matter was heard by Deputy
Director of Consolidation - No compromise or
settlement was arrived at by the petitioner
with the opposite party - Held - D.D.C.
exceeded its jurisdiction in deciding the
revision on merits in Lok Adalat (Para 22)

Allowed. (E-5)
List of Cases cited :

## Text

1090 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
30.12.2020 passed by the respondent no.1
is modified to the extent that matter is
remitted before the S.O.C. for deciding the
appeal, filed before him by Jagram, on its
own merits. Benefit given by respondent
no.1 under section 5 of Limitation Act,
1963 by condoning the delay in filing the
appeal is, accordingly, affirmed.
----------
(2021)09ILR A1090
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

Consolidation No. 359 of 1998

Sant Ram ...Petitioner
Versus
D.D.C., Faizabad ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
S.K.Mehrotra, Balram Yadava, G.S.L. Verma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Manzer Ali, Mayank Pandey, Shikha
Sinha

Civil Law - Legal Services Authorities
Act, 1987 - Section 20 - in Lok Adalat
matter can be decided only with the
compromise or settlement between the
parties - in absence of any compromise
or settlement between parties matter
cannot be decided on merits - if no
settlement takes place in Lok Adalat
then the matter should be sent to the
court concerned, for decision

In Lok Adalat matter was heard by Deputy
Director of Consolidation - No compromise or
settlement was arrived at by the petitioner
with the opposite party - Held - D.D.C.
exceeded its jurisdiction in deciding the
revision on merits in Lok Adalat (Para 22)

Allowed. (E-5)
List of Cases cited :

1. St. of Pun. & ors. Vs Mohinderjit Kaur (2005)
2 SCC 743

2. U.O.I. Vs Ananto (Dead) & anr.(2007) 10 SCC
748

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.)

1. Heard Sri Balram Yadav, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Dr. Krishna
Singh, learned Standing Counsel for
opposite party no. 1 and Ms. Shikha Sinha,
learned counsel for opposite party no. 2/1.

2. The writ petition has been filed
with the following main reliefs:-

"(a) issue a writ of certiorari
quashing the order dated 20.05.1998 vide
annexure no. 6 passed by the Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation,
Faizabad
holding the Lok Adalat at Kuchera Bazar in
District Faizabad illegally modifying the
chak of the petitioner;

(b) issue any other appropriate
writ, direction or order as may seem to be
expedient in the ends of justice."

3. By the order dated 16.07.1998,
notices were issued to the opposite party
no. 2 and it was provided that in the
meantime, the operation of the order dated
20.05.1998 passed by the Deputy Director
of Consolidation, Faizabad shall remain
stayed and the possession of the petitioner
over half of the plot no. 555/1 shall not be
disturbed in pursuance of the said order.

4. By the order dated 08.09.2021, the
learned Standing Counsel was directed to
inform the Court on the basis of record as
to whether (i) the revision was heard on
17.05.1998
in
Lok
Adalat;
(ii)What
9 All Sant Ram Vs. D.D.C., Faizabad
1091
happened on 17.05.1998; (iii) Whether
20.05.1998 was the date fixed in the
revision and; (iv) if the petitioner was heard
on 17.05.1998 and/or 20.05.1998.

5. Supplementary affidavit has been
filed today in Court by the learned Standing
Counsel on behalf of opposite party no. 1,
copy of which has been served on the
learned counsels for the petitioner as also
for opposite party no. 2/1.

6. As copies of the orders dated
17.05.1998 & 20.05.1998 have been
annexed with respect to which there is no
dispute, any rejoinder affidavit is not called
for nor has been asked for.

7. Sri Balram Yadav submits that
the facts of the case are that one
Hanuman Deen (opposite party no. 2),
now deceased had filed an objection
under Section 20 of the Uttar Pradesh
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in
short 'the Act, 1953') along with a prayer
for condonation of delay in filing the
objection. The objection was rejected by
the Consolidation Officer by order dated
21.03.1998 (Annexure no. 4) against
which he filed revision under Section 48
of the Act, 1953. In the said revision, a
notice was issued on 16.05.1998 by the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation,
Faizabad for holding Lok Adalat on
17.05.1998. The notice dated 16.05.1998
could not be served on the petitioner as
he was not present being posted at
District Ganga Nagar in the State of
Rajasthan. The Lok Adalat was held on
17.05.1998 in which the matter was heard
by the Deputy Director of Consolidation
on merits and the judgment was reserved
for being pronounced on 20.05.1998, on
which date the revision of the opposite
party no. 2 was allowed.

8. Sri Balram Yadav submits that the
order dated 20.05.1998 was passed without
affording any opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner. His further submission is that in
Lok Adalat, the matter can be decided only
with the compromise or settlement between
the parties and in the absence of any
compromise or settlement arrived at by the
petitioner with the opposite party, the
Deputy Director of Consolidation exceeded
its jurisdiction in deciding the revision on
merits. His further submission is that if no
settlement takes place in Lok Adalat then
the matter should be sent to the court
concerned, for decision. He has placed
reliance on Section 20 of the Legal
Services Authorities Act, 1987 (in short 'the
Act, 1987').

9. Ms. Shikha Sinha, learned counsel
for opposite party no. 2/1 submits that after
hearing the petitioner's counsel, the Deputy
Director of Consolidation had passed the
order dated 20.05.1998 on merits and in view
thereof, the petitioner's contention that the
notice was not served upon him and he was
not heard, is no ground to challenge the order
dated 20.05.1998. She further submits that
the order does not suffer from any illegality
and, therefore, it calls for no interference in
exercise of writ jurisdiction. With respect to
Section 20 of the Act, 1987, she submits that
although sub-Section (1) provides for filing
of joint application in the court or Tribunal
where the matter is pending by the parties
indicating their intention to compromise the
matter or to arrive at a settlement, the matter
shall be transferred to the Lok Adalat for
arriving at a compromise or settlement, but in
view of sub-Section (2) of Section 20 of the
Act, 1987, the District Authority may on
receipt of an application from any person that
any dispute or matter pending for a
compromise or settlement, needs to be
determined by the Lok Adalat, refer such
1092 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dispute or matter to the Lok Adalat for
determination.

10. I have considered the submissions
advanced by learned counsels for the parties
and perused the material on record.

11. The controversy involved in the
writ petition mainly is as to whether the
impugned order dated 20.05.1998 is an order
passed
by
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation in Lok Adalat held on
17.05.1998, and if the answer is in
affirmative, whether the Deputy Director of
Consolidation had jurisdiction to decide the
revision on merits, which was a contested
matter without there being any settlement or
compromise between the parties.

12. From the facts on record, it is
undisputed that the revision filed by the
opposite party no. 2 was transferred to the
Lok Adalat. Perusal of the notice issued on
02.05.1998 by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation shows that the top of the notice
mentions ''Lok Adalat at Kuchera Bazar'
fixing 17.05.1998 in the Lok Adalat. The
order-sheet dated 17.05.1998 of the revision,
Annexure no. SA-1 to the supplementary
affidavit filed by opposite party no. 1 also
shows that on 17.05.1998, the revision was
heard in Lok Adalat, Kuchera Bazar and
20.05.1998 was fixed for orders. The ordersheet dated 17.05.1998 reads as under:-

"आज यह पत्रावली लोि अदालत
िैम्प िुचेरा में सुनवाई हेतु प्रस्तुत हुई I
पक्षिारोां िे तिों िो सुना गया I

अतः आदेश हुआ कि पत्रावली
कदनाांि 20.05.98 िो आदेशाथा प्रस्तुत हो I"

13. From the aforesaid, it is evident that
the revision was heard in Lok Adalat on
17.05.1998 and 20.05.1998 was fixed for
orders, on which date, the order under
challenge was passed. The order dated
20.05.1998 was not passed on the day the
Lok Adalat was held but as the matter was
heard in Lok Adalat on 17.05.1998 and
20.05.1998 was fixed for orders, the order
dated 20.05.1998 is in effect, an order passed
in Lok Adalat inasmuch as a court, tribunal or
quasi-judicial authority may after hearing the
matter pass orders then and there or may fix a
future date, for delivery or dictation of order
or judgment. Therefore, the order dated
20.05.1998 cannot be considered, ignoring
the order dated 17.05.1998 passed in Lok
Adalat.

14. Section 20 of the Act, 1987 reads as
under:-

"20. Cognizance of Cases by Lok
Adalats

(1) Where in any case referred to
in clause (i) of sub-section (5) of Section 19-
(i)

(i) (a) The parties thereof agree or

(i) (b) One of the parties thereof
makes an application to the court, for
referring the case to the Lok Adalat for
settlement and if such court is prima facie
satisfied that there are chances of such
settlement or

(ii) The court is satisfied that the
matter is an appropriate one to be taken
cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, the court
shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat:
Provided that no case shall be referred to
the Lok Adalat under sub-clause (b) of
clause ( i) or clause (ii) by such court
except
after
giving
a
reasonable
opportunity of being heard to the parties.
9 All Sant Ram Vs. D.D.C., Faizabad
1093

(2)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in any other law for the time
being in force, the Authority or Committee
organising the Lok Adalat under subsection (1) of Section 19 may, on receipt of
an application from any, one of the parties
to any matter referred to in clause (ii) of
sub-section (5) of Section 19 that such
matter needs to be determined by a Lok
Adalat, refer such matter to the Lok Adalat,
for determination; Provided that no matter
shall be referred to the Lok Adalat except
after giving a reasonable opportunity of
being heard to the other party.

(3) Where any case is referred to
a Lok Adalat under sub-section (1) or
where a reference has been made to it
under sub-section (2), the Lok Adalat shall
proceed to dispose of the case or matter
and arrive at a compromise or settlement
between the parties.

(4) Every Lok Adalat shall, while
determining any reference before it under
this Act, act with utmost expedition to
arrive at a compromise or settlement
between the parties and shall be guided by
the principles of justice equity, fair play
and other legal principles.

(5) Where no award is made by
the Lok Adalat on the ground that no
compromise or settlement could be arrived
at between the parties, the record of the
case shall be returned by it to the court,
from which the reference has been received
under sub-section (1) for disposal in
accordance with law.

(6) Where no award is made by the
Lok Adalat on the ground that no
compromise or settlement could be arrived at
between the parties, in a matter referred to in
sub-section (2), that Lok Adalat shall advice
the parties to seek remedy in a court.

(7) Where the record of the case is
returned under sub-section (5) to the court,
such court shall proceed to deal such
reference under sub-section (1)."

15. A bare reading of Section 20 (3)
of the Act, 1987, makes it clear that where
any case is transferred to a Lok Adalat
under sub-Section (1) or where a reference
has been made to it under sub-Section (2),
the Lok Adalat shall proceed to dispose of
the suit, proceeding, dispute or matter and
arrive at a compromise or settlement
between the parties. As per sub-Section (4),
every Lok Adalat shall while determining
any proceedings before it under the Act,
1987, act with utmost expedition to arrive
at a compromise or settlement between the
parties and shall be guided by legal
principles and the principles of justice,
equity and fair play. Sub-Section (5) clearly
mentions that where no award is made in
the Lok Adalat on the ground that no
compromise or settlement can be arrived at
between the parties, it shall be open to the
parties to the suit or proceeding transferred
from the court or Tribunal under subSection (1) but continue such suit or
proceeding before such court or Tribunal or
if it is a dispute or matter referred to the
Lok Adalat under sub-Section (2), any of
the person may institute a proceeding in an
appropriate court. Sub-section (6) also
provides very clearly that where under subSection (5), the parties to a suit or
proceeding
intend
to
continue
the
proceeding in such suit or proceeding
before the court or Tribunal from which it
was transferred, such court or Tribunal
shall proceed to deal with such suit or
proceeding from the stage at which it was,
1094 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
before
the
suit
or
proceeding
was
transferred to the Lok Adalat.

16. Therefore, it is evident from the
statutory provisions that in Lok Adalat, the
proceedings
can
be
decided
only
on
compromise or settlement between the parties,
if arrived, and if no award can be made by the
Lok Adalat because no compromise or
settlement could be arrived at between the
parties, the matter shall be continued before the
court or Tribunal from where it was transferred
to the Lok Adalat, which court shall proceed to
deal with the suit or proceeding from the stage
where it was before that court before its transfer
to the Lok Adalat.

17. In State of Punjab and Ors. vs.
Mohinderjit Kaur [(2005) 2 SCC 743], in
para 4, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as
under:-

"4. This Court held that the
course adopted by the High Court was not
proper. In State of Punjab and Ors. v.
Phulan Rani and Anr. [(2004) 7 SCC 555]
it was indicated as to which matters can be
taken up by the Lok Adalat for disposal. It
was inter alia held as follows:

"The matters which can be taken
up by the Lok Adalat for disposal are
enumerated in Section 20 of the Act which
reads as follows:-

"Cognizance of cases by Lok
Adalats:-

(1) Where in any case referred to
in clause

(i) of sub-section (5) of section 19

(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or

(b) one of the parties thereof
makes an application to the court, for
referring the case to the Lok Adalat for
settlement and if such court is prima facie
satisfied that there are chances of such
settlement; or

(ii) the court is satisfied that the
matter is an appropriate one to be taken
cognizance of by the Lok Adalat,

The Court shall refer the case to
the Lok Adalat.

Provided that no case shall be
referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-clause
(b) of clause (i) or clause (ii) by such court
except
after
giving
a
reasonable
opportunity of being heard to the parties.

(2)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in any other law for the time
being in force, the Authority or Committee
organizing the Lok Adalat under subsection (1) of Section 19 may, on receipt of
an application from any one of the parties
to any matter referred to in clause (ii) of
sub-section (5) of section 19 that such
matter needs to be determined by a Lok
Adalat, refer such matter to the Lok Adalat,
for determination:

Provided that no matter shall be
referred to the Lok Adalat except after
giving a reasonable opportunity of being
heard to the other party.

(3) Where any case is referred to
a Lok Adalat under sub-section (1) or
where a reference has been made to it
under sub-section (2), the Lok Adalat shall
proceed to dispose of the case or matter
and arrive at a compromise or settlement
between the parties.
9 All Sant Ram Vs. D.D.C., Faizabad
1095

(4) Every Lok Adalat shall, while
determining any reference before it under
this Act, act with utmost expedition to
arrive at a compromise or settlement
between the parties and shall be guided by
the principles of justice, equity, fair play
and other legal principles.

(5) Where no award is made by
the Lok Adalat on the ground that no
compromise or settlement could be arrived
at between the parties, the record of the
case shall be returned by it to the Court,
from which the reference has been received
under sub- section (1) for disposal in
accordance with law.

(6) Where no award is made by
the Lok Adalat on the ground that no
compromise or settlement could be arrived
at between the parties, in a matter referred
to in sub-section (2), that Lok Adalat shall
advice the parties to seek remedy in a
Court.

(7) Where the record of the case
is returned under sub-section (5) to the
Court, such Court shall proceed to deal
with such case from the stage which was
reached before such reference under subsection (1)."

The specific language used in
sub-section (3) of Section 20 makes it clear
that the Lok Adalat 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 of differences
by mutual concessions. It is an agreement
reached by adjustment of conflicting or
opposing claims by reciprocal modification
of demands. As per Termes de la Ley,
"compromise is a mutual promise of two or
more parties that are at controversy. As per
Bouvier it is "an agreement between two or
more persons, who, to avoid a law suit,
amicably settle theeir differences, on such
terms as they can agree upon". The word
"compromise" implies some element of
accommodation on each side. It is not apt
to describe total surrender."

18. In Mohinderjit Kaur (supra), it
has clearly been held that the Lok Adalat
can dispose of the matter by way of
compromise or settlement between the
parties.

19. The same principle has been
reiterated in Union of India vs. Ananto
(Dead) and Another [(2007) 10 SCC
748].

20.

Neither
the
order
dated
17.05.1998 nor 20.05.1998 mentions that
any compromise or settlement was arrived
at between the parties in Lok Adalat. It is
also not a case of the opposite parties that
any compromise or settlement taken place
in Lok Adalat between the parties.

21. Reading of the judgment dated
20.05.1998 clearly shows that the contested
matter was decided on merits accepting the
submissions of the party and rejecting the
submission of the other side.

22. As the impugned order deserves
to be quashed on the aforesaid ground, the
court has not entered into the controversy
as to whether there was service of notice on
the petitioner and as to whether the
petitioner was heard in Lok Adalat or only
his brother was heard, inasmuch as this
Court is of the considered view that even if
the order dated 20.05.1998 was passed after
hearing the petitioner or his counsel on
17.05.1998, the impugned order could not
1096 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
be passed on merits, in the absence of their
being any settlement or compromise
between the parties.

23. Submission of Ms. Shikha Sinha
that the application for transfer to Lok
Adalat can be filed by any of the parties
does not require any consideration in the
present case, as no such issue is involved,
whether the transfer was made on the
application of one party or the other, and as
the fact remains undisputed that the case
was transferred to the Lok Adalat. The
transfer of case to the Lok Adalat from the
court of Deputy Director of Consolidation
is also not under challenge.

24. For the aforesaid reasons, the
impugned order dated 20.05.1998 cannot
be sustained and is hereby quashed.

25. The revision filed by opposite
party no. 2 stands restored to its original
number before the Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Faizabad, which shall be
proceeded with and decided in accordance
with law after affording opportunity of
hearing to all the parties concerned,
expeditiously, as the matter pertains to the
year 1998, preferably within a period of six
months from the date of production of copy
of this judgment before the said authority.

26. In the interest of justice, it is
further provided that for a period of six
months or till decision of the revision by
the Deputy Director of Consolidation,
whichever is earlier, the possession of the
petitioner over half of the plot no. 555/1
shall not be disturbed.

27. The writ petition is allowed with
the aforesaid observation/direction.
----------
(2021)09ILR A1096
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.

Consolidation No. 788 of 1986

Babu Ali & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
D.D.C. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
R.K. Sharma, D.K. Trivedi, Dwijendra
Mishra, U.K. Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Ashish Jaiswal, D.C. Mukarjee, S.
Mirza, Surendra Pal Singh

A. Adverse possession - Land Records
Manual - Para-89-A, 89-B & 102-B - Form
No. PA-10 - if any entry is made in Form
No.
PA-10,
the
same
is
to
be
communicated to the persons concerned,
recorded in columns 3 and 4 or their heirs,
by the Lekhpal and is required to obtain
their signatures in the copy of the list
retained by him - If PA-10 notice is not
served on the main tenant, such entries
are of no evidentiary value and would not
confer any right - illegal entry does not
confer title - even if the entry has been
made, it does not confer right title or
interest if it is not in accordance with law
and the prescribed procedure - burden to
prove that the entries is in accordance
with the provisions of Land Record Manual
is on the person who is asserting the
possession
on
the
basis
of
adverse
possession (Para 12, 13, 14, 15)

B. Adverse possession - in case of adverse
possession, communication to the owner
and his hostility towards the possession is
must - there shall not be presumption of
continuous
on
the
basis of
adverse
possession unless year to year entries is
made, in accordance with law, in the