HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 1000294 of 2015 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri Waquar Hashim learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the State respondent and Sri Rajan Rao holding brief of Sri Naresh Singh learned counsel for the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that award passed by the Lok Adalat is bad on account of the fact that the private respondent was not the Bhumidhar and for the said reason, she was not covered under the Scheme. 3. It is urged that while allowing the claim, the Lok Adalat has also awarded a penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- which is exorbitant and even beyond the scope of Section 22(b) of the Legal Service Authority Act. 4. It has also been urged that for the aforesaid reasons, the order passed by the Lok Adalat requires interference. 5. Learned counsel for the private respondent at the outset submits that the issue involved in the instant petition was considered by this Court in Writ petition no.20736/MS/2018 (Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Chote Singh and Ors) and Writ petition no.5324/MS/2015 (Oriental Insurance Company vs Smt. Ramkali and Ors). It is further submitted that in light thereof the issue stands decided and the instant petition can also be decided in terms thereof. 6. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from a perusal of the decisions of coordinate Bench of this Court in Chote Singh (supra) and Smt. Ram Kali (supra), it would indicate that this Court had considered the true Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Waquar Hashim Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Naresh Singh The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Thru Divisional Manager .....Petitioner(s) Smt. Kanti Devi And Others .....Respondent(s) meaning of how the Bhumidhar is to be considered for the purpose of a welfare Scheme. The aforesaid decisions also noticed the various provisions had though upheld the award but the penalty amount was modified and an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- which was awarded was reduced to Rs.75,000/-. 7. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from a perusal of the material on record. Apparently, in the instant case as well while passing the impugned award dated 05.11.2014 apart from granting the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- a penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- has been awarded. 8. At this stage, it will be appropriate to notice the relevant observations of this Court in Chote Singh (supra) and Smt. Ram Kali (supra) and the relevant portion of the decision of this Court in Chote Singh is being reproduced hereinafter which has been considered and dealt with in Gauri Devi (supra): "Insofar as the quantum of penalty questioned in the present petition is concerned, it is true that the imposition of penalty in a situation of denial of claim is Rs. One Lakh Fifty Thousand but the present case in a situation of repudiation letter dated 7.4.2011 not being final, can only be treated to be a case of delayed payment, therefore, the quantification of penalty to the tune of Rs. One Lakh Fifty Thousand is clearly illegal and arbitrary and beyond the scope of clause 22(b) of the agreement. This Court would also note that every Permanent Lok Adalat is under a bounden duty to undertake the process of conciliation before advancing to adjudicate a claim on merit. This aspect of the matter has also not been dealt with by the Permanent Lok Adalat in a manner prescribed under law, therefore, the imposition of maximum penalty, in my humble view, is exorbitant. This Court having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as the resultant delay would quantify the amount of penalty at Rs. Fifty Thousand and to this extent, the impugned award deserves to be modified. The amount of penalty modified to the aforesaid extent is thus affirmed. The award is accordingly modified. The petitioner is directed to discharge the liability not later than a period of one month from today." 9. Having taken note of the aforesaid, this Court finds that the issue regarding whether the respondent could be treated to be Bhumidhar has elaborately been considered in Gauri Devi (supra) which is based on the reason of Chote Singh (supra). This Court further finds that in so far as the penalty is concerned, the same also been reduced and the decisions of Chote WRIC No. 1000294 of 2015 2 Singh (supra) and Smt. Ramkali (supra), their dictum is clearly attracted in the instant case. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate as to how the grounds raised regarding the entitlement of the petitioner and interference in the penalty amount does not apply to the instant case. 11. Considering the dictum of this Court in Chote Singh (supra) and Smt. Gauri Devi (supra) this Court is of the view that the instant petition also raises the same question and accordingly, the instant award is also modified to the aforesaid extent that the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as awarded shall be paid to the claimants and the penalty amount shall be treated to be Rs.75,000/-. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is partly allowed. 13. The petitioner shall deposit the awarded sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along with penalty of Rs.75,000/- before the Lok Adalat within a period of four weeks and the aforesaid amount shall also carry interest @ 9% from the date of award dated 05.11.2014 till the date of actual payment and the aforesaid amount shall be released in favour of the petitioner after making due verification. October 27, 2025 Harshita WRIC No. 1000294 of 2015 3 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench