W.P.(C) No. 31132 of 2025 p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.31132 of 2025 An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Madhuchanda Sahani …. Petitioners @ Mohanty and others Versus Saroj Kumar Dani and others …. Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in the case : For Petitioners: Mr. Amit Prasad Bose, Advocate For Opp. Parties: Mr. Prasanta Kumar Satapathy, Advocate (for O.P. Nos.1, 2 and 10 to 16) Mr. Dibyajyoti Sahoo, Advocate (for Interveners in IA No.2664 of 2026 co-sharer, mother of the present petitioners) Mr. P. Khandelwal, Advocate (for O.P. Nos.3 to 8 and 9 (through LRs) Mr. S. Tibrewal, Advocate (for Interveners in IA No.4683 of 2026) CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO J U D G M E N T ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of hearing and judgment: 6th April, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MRUGANKA SEKHR SAHOO, J. 1. The petitioners in the writ petition challenge the order dated 10.05.2025 as well as the consequential orders dated W.P.(C) No. 31132 of 2025 p. 2 15.05.2025 and 19.02.2025 in C.S. No.133 of 2022 (Annexure-1) and the final decree (Annexure-7). The final decree has been passed in the partition suit. 2. The cause title of the partition suit as available on record indicates that the opposite parties no.1 and 2 were the plaintiffs before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sambalpur. The present applicants were defendant nos.16, 17 and 21 respectively. By order dated 09.05.2025 the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sambalpur recorded the joint compromise petition filed along with sketch map stating the terms of compromise. The said order dated 09.05.2025 is reproduced herein: “The case record is put up today. The plaintiffs and the defendants No 1 to 6, 9,10,11,13 & 23 are present in the court today along with their Aadhar Cards and they jointly filed a petition praying therein that they want to compromise this case as the issues were amicably settled between them on intervention of village gentries and relatives. The parties have filed joint compromise petition along with sketch map stating the terms of compromise. Heard the parties. Put up on 10.05.2025 for order.” 3. Thereafter the order of disposal was passed by order dated 10.05.2025. The said order is reproduced herein: “The case record is put up today for passing necessary order before the National Lok Adalat. This order arises out of a petition filed by both the parties praying therein that they want to compromise this case as the issues were amicably settled between them on intervention of village gentries and relatives. The parties have filed joint compromise petition along with sketch map stating the terms of compromise. On enquiry, the compromise is found to be voluntary one and no undue influence or fraud has been practised. Being satisfied that the compromise is voluntary one and lawful, the said amicable settlement is accepted. As this is a suit for partition, decree in finality be W.P.(C) No. 31132 of 2025 p. 3 drawn as per terms of compromise. The compromise petition and the sketch map do form part of the decree. Accordingly, either of the parties is directed to file the required stamp papers for engrossment of final decree.” 4. The principal ground of challenge before this Court to the order of disposal dated 10.05.2025 and the final decree passed in C.S. No.133 of 2022 before the National Lok Adalat is that the notices to the defendant nos.16, 17 and 21 was not sufficient. Concededly, they are the co-sharers of the property. The other ground of challenge to the order is that the defendant no.9 had passed away during pendency of the civil suit and could not/was not substituted by the plaintiffs. The further ground is that the defendant no.7 had also passed away during pendency of the civil suit, remained un-substituted and there was no question of, she agreeing for any kind of compromise. 5. The learned counsel, Mr. Bose for the petitioners refers to the order dated 29.11.2024 of the learned Senior Civil Judge which reads thus: “Advocate for plaintiff filed hazira. Adv. Sri S.K. Mishra & associates filed vakalatnama on behalf of def. No.1 to 14 and the same is accepted. Advocate for def. No.1 to 14 and 23, 24 filed separate petitions praying time for filing W.S. on the ground stated therein. Heard, the petitions are allowed. Put up on 3.1.25 for awaiting SRs of other defs and filing of W.S.” 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel, Mr. Bose that though the learned court awaited for ‘Service Return’ (SR) of the notice issued to other defendants and filing of written statement, there has been no further verification or any observation by the W.P.(C) No. 31132 of 2025 p. 4 court regarding the SR till the compromise decree was filed and the final decree has also been drawn. 7. In State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh1, larger bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court examined award of Lok Adalat whether can be challenged, the circumstance in which such challenge can be entertained by High Court and scope of interference by the High Court. The paragraphs relied upon and applied in considering the present matter are reproduced herein: “8. It is evident from the said provisions that the Lok Adalats have no adjudicatory or judicial functions. Their functions relate purely to conciliation. A Lok Adalat determines a reference on the basis of a compromise or settlement between the parties at its instance, and puts its seal of confirmation by making an award in terms of the compromise or settlement. When the Lok Adalat is not able to arrive at a settlement or compromise, no award is made and the case record is returned to the court from which the reference was received, for disposal in accordance with law. No Lok Adalat has the power to “hear” parties to adjudicate cases as a court does. It discusses the subject-matter with the parties and persuades them to arrive at a just settlement. In their conciliatory role, the Lok Adalats are guided by the principles of justice, equity and fair play. When the LSA Act refers to “determination” by the Lok Adalat and “award” by the Lok Adalat, the said Act does not contemplate nor require an adjudicatory judicial determination, but a non-adjudicatory determination based on a compromise or settlement, arrived at by the parties, with guidance and assistance from the Lok Adalat. The “award” of the Lok Adalat does not mean any independent verdict or opinion arrived at by 1 (2008) 2 SCC 660 W.P.(C) No. 31132 of 2025 p. 5 any decision-making process. The making of the award is merely an administrative act of incorporating the terms of settlement or compromise agreed by parties in the presence of the Lok Adalat, in the form of an executable order under the signature and seal of the Lok Adalat. 9. But we find that many sitting or retired Judges, while participating in the Lok Adalats as members, tend to conduct the Lok Adalats like courts, by hearing parties, and imposing their views as to what is just and equitable, on the parties. Sometimes they get carried away and proceed to pass orders on merits, as in this case, even though there is no consensus or settlement. Such acts, instead of fostering alternative dispute resolution through the Lok Adalats, will drive the litigants away from the Lok Adalats. The Lok Adalats should resist their temptation to play the part of judges and constantly strive to function as conciliators. The endeavour and effort of the Lok Adalats should be to guide and persuade the parties, with reference to principles of justice, equity and fair play to compromise and settle the dispute by explaining the pros and cons, strengths and weaknesses, advantages and disadvantages of their respective claims. 10. The order of the Lok Adalat in this case (extracted above), shows that it assumed a judicial role, heard parties, ignored the absence of consensus, and increased the compensation to an extent it considered just and reasonable, by a reasoned order which is adjudicatory in nature. It arrogated to itself the appellate powers of the High Court and “allowed” the appeal and “directed” the respondents in the appeal to pay the enhanced compensation of Rs 62,200 within two months. The order of the Lok Adalat was not passed by consent of parties or in pursuance of any compromise or settlement between the parties, is evident from its observation that “if the parties object to the proposed order they may move the High Court within two months for disposal of the appeal on merits according to law”. Such an order is not an award of W.P.(C) No. 31132 of 2025 p. 6 the Lok Adalat. Being contrary to law and beyond the power and jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat, it is void in the eye of the law. Such orders which “impose” the views of the Lok Adalats on the parties, whatever be the good intention behind them, bring a bad name to the Lok Adalats and legal services. xxx xxx xxx xxx 12. It is true that where an award is made by the Lok Adalat in terms of a settlement arrived at between the parties (which is duly signed by parties and annexed to the award of the Lok Adalat), it becomes final and binding on the parties to the settlement and becomes executable as if it is a decree of a civil court, and no appeal lies against it to any court. If any party wants to challenge such an award based on settlement, it can be done only by filing a petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution, that too on very limited grounds. But where no compromise or settlement is signed by the parties and the order of the Lok Adalat does not refer to any settlement, but directs the respondent to either make payment if it agrees to the order, or approach the High Court for disposal of appeal on merits, if it does not agree, is not an award of the Lok Adalat. The question of challenging such an order in a petition under Article 227 does not arise. As already noticed, in such a situation, the High Court ought to have heard and disposed of the appeal on merits. xxx xxx xxx xxx 14. Thus we find that the Lok Adalat exercised a power/jurisdiction not vested in it. On the other hand, the High Court twice refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it, thereby denying justice and driving the appellants to this Court. In this process, a simple appeal by the legal heirs of the deceased for enhancement of compensation, has been tossed around and is pending for more than eight years, putting them to avoidable expense and harassment.” W.P.(C) No. 31132 of 2025 p. 7 8. In view of the above, applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab (supra) which have been subsequently reiterated/followed in Bhargavi Constructions v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy2,1it has to be held that notices on the writ petitioners-defendants before the learned Lok Adalat, after notices were issued by the Court, were not recorded to be sufficient. It would go to the root of the issue as the notice was not sufficient before filing of the compromise petition. 9. In view of the above discussions the final order dated 10.05.2025 and the final decree dated 19.05.2025 passed in C.S. No.133 of 202 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sambalpur, taken up in National Lok Adalat are set aside. The suit before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sambalpur is restored to file. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner also refers to certain further issues regarding irregularity in the compromise petition filed before the learned trial court. This Court need not go into said aspect as the final order as well as the final decree are set aside together. 11. The parties before this Court shall appear before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sambalpur on 04.05.2026. On the said date, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sambalpur shall fix a date for further hearing from the stage of the order dated 29.11.2024. 2 (2018) 13 SCC 480 W.P.(C) No. 31132 of 2025 p. 8 Effort shall be made by all the parties to arrive at a result in consensus, acceptable to all the parties as it was done earlier in the National Lok Adalat. The matter can be referred to the Special Mediation Drive 2.0-Mediation For The Nation. 12. The present defendants who are the petitioners shall any how appear i.e. defendants 16, 17 and 21 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sambalpur on 04.05.2026 as directed above. The defendants no.3 to 8 and 9 (represented through the LRs.) shall appear. 13. The plaintiffs shall take steps for substituting the LRs of defendant no.7 who have already instructed Mr. Khandelwal, learned counsel and intended to appear in the present proceeding before this Court. The plaintiffs shall also take steps for substitution of other defendants who have unfortunately passed away in the meantime and have been discovered to be so during pendency of the present writ petition before this Court. I.A. No.4683 of 2026 14. The I.A. has been filed by the intending interveners who seek to intervene in the present writ petition. It is submitted by Mr. Tibrewal, learned counsel that they had entered into an agreement to sell/have executed sale deed with some of the co-sharers/defendants. The learned counsel for the intending interveners also refers to a copy of the sale deed annexed to the I.A. W.P.(C) No. 31132 of 2025 p. 9 15. At this stage, this Court need not and does not express any opinion regarding the contentions and rights of the parties in the I.A. to intervene in the present writ petition which is being disposed of by the directions as indicated above. 16. The intending interveners who are the petitioners in the I.A., if so advised shall approach the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sambalpur as per the provisions of law in the pending suit which has been restored. In case any application is filed on behalf of anyone, seeking to intervene, the same shall be considered by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sambalpur in its own merit in accordance with law and appropriate orders shall be passed. 17. The I.A. is disposed of. 18. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of with the directions as indicated above. The interim order passed earlier by the coordinate Bench shall merge with the final order passed today and all the interim orders stand vacated. Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 6th April, 2026/Jyostna