Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, who were plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No.14 of 2012, filed a suit for injunction concerning agricultural lands. On 17 March 2012, they filed consent terms with the defendants (respondents 1-3). The Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sangola, recorded the compromise but directed the parties to produce documents of pending proceedings under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, indicating reluctance to pass a decree without examining those proceedings. Despite this, the suit was placed before the Maha Lok Adalat on 29 July 2012, which passed an award in terms of the same consent terms, and a decree was passed accordingly. The petitioners challenged this decree by way of a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The court noted that Section 21(2) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 bars any challenge to a Lok Adalat award. However, the court held that if an award is a nullity for want of inherent jurisdiction or is based on fraud or collusion, the High Court can exercise its writ jurisdiction. In this case, the civil court had already directed scrutiny of tenancy proceedings, and the Lok Adalat ignored that direction. The subject matter involved tenancy rights, which are within the exclusive jurisdiction of tenancy authorities under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. Therefore, the Lok Adalat award was without jurisdiction and a nullity. The court quashed the award and decree, and remanded the suit to the civil court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, directing the civil court to consider the tenancy proceedings before passing any decree.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Lok Adalat Award - Consent Decree - Bar under Section 21(2) of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - Writ Jurisdiction - The award passed by a Lok Adalat is final and cannot be challenged in any court, but if the award is a nullity for want of inherent jurisdiction or is based on fraud or collusion, the High Court can exercise its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to quash it. (Paras 6-7) B) Tenancy Law - Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Consent Decree - The civil court had directed the parties to produce documents of pending tenancy proceedings before passing a decree on consent terms. The Lok Adalat, without examining those proceedings, passed an award in terms of the same consent terms. Held that the award is illegal and without jurisdiction as the subject matter involves tenancy rights which are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the tenancy authorities. (Paras 3-5, 7) C) Constitutional Law - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - Writ Jurisdiction - Nullity - The High Court can interfere with a Lok Adalat award if it is a nullity, e.g., passed without jurisdiction or in violation of statutory provisions. The bar under Section 21(2) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 does not apply to such cases. (Para 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a Lok Adalat award/decree passed in a civil suit relating to agricultural land, without considering pending proceedings under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, is liable to be quashed in writ jurisdiction despite the bar under Section 21(2) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the award/decree passed by the Maha Lok Adalat on 29 July 2012 in Regular Civil Suit No.14 of 2012, and remanded the suit to the civil court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The civil court was directed to consider the pending tenancy proceedings before passing any decree.
Law Points
- Lok Adalat award
- consent decree
- Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act
- 1948
- Legal Services Authorities Act
- 1987
- Section 21(2) bar
- writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227
- inherent lack of jurisdiction
- nullity
