Page No.# 1/5 GAHC030004272024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/63/2024 Sh. Zosiamliana S/o Padama (L) R/o Lunglawn, Lunglei, Mizoram VERSUS Sh. Jacob Lalpekhlua S/o C. Lalthanliana R/o Zobawk, Lunglei, Mizoram Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. K. Thangremsang Advocate for the Respondent : ORDER B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA 12.03.2025 Heard Mr. K. Thangremsang, learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears for the respondent. 2. The petitioner has submitted an affidavit dated 06.11.2024, indicating notice had been served upon the respondent by way of Dasti service. On the Page No.# 2/5 other hand, notice was also sent by registered post with A/D for the respondent on 02.07.2024. However, there is no return of A/D card or unserved notice. This Court has also noticed that the operation of Execution Suit No. 24/2023, for execution of the Award dated 11.09.2021 made by the Lok Adalat in the National Lok Adalat, had been stayed vide Order dated 20.08.2024. However, despite the same, no one appears for the respondent. 3. This Court is of the view that as 30 days has elapsed and as Dasti service of notice has been made on the respondent, notice is deemed to be served upon the respondent. As no one appears for the respondent, the matter is being decided exparte. 4. The petitioner’s case is that the respondent had filed Money Suit No. 48/2019 before the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Lunglei, for recovery of Rs. 9,75,000/- from the petitioner, which had been taken on loan. The petitioner had accordingly deposited his land document, i.e. LSC No. 166/1996, as security for the loan amount. The Money Suit was thereafter sent to the Lok Adalat, Lunglei for attempting a settlement between the parties. 5. The petitioner’s counsel submits that Award dated 11.09.2021 was issued by the Lok Adalat on 11.09.2021, wherein it was recorded that an agreement had been reached between the parties, wherein the petitioner would pay an amount of Rs. 700,000/- to the respondent within 6 months. Thereafter, the LSC No. 166/1996 was to be returned by the respondent to the petitioner. 6. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the Award dated 11.09.2021 has Page No.# 3/5 been submitted to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Lunglei for execution by the respondent and the same was registered Execution Suit No. 24/2023. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the Award had not been signed by the petitioner and the same was done by the Junior counsel i.e. C. Julie Malsawmdawngzeli, who was the Junior of Z.D. Lalnunsanga, the petitioner’s counsel. He submits that the Award dated 11.09.2021 has not been made on the basis of any settlement between the parties. Further, C. Julie Malsawmdawngzeli had not been given permission by the petitioner to sign the Award. He accordingly prays that as no Settlement had been made and as the Award has not been signed by the petitioner, the Award dated 11.09.2021 should be set aside. 7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 8. A perusal of the Award dated 11.09.2021 shows that C. Julie Malsawmdawngzeli has signed the Award on behalf of the petitioner, i.e. Zosiamliana. The petitioner has not given any signature to any Settlement or the Award. There is also no document to show that the petitioner had given his consent to his counsel, to sign the Award on his behalf or that he agreed to the terms of the Award. The affidavit dated 26.06.2024 executed by the counsel for the petitioner in the District Court, Lunglei i.e. Sh. Z.D. Lalnunsanga, is to the effect that he had not directed his junior C. Julie Malsawmdawngzeli to put her signature on any document in the Lok Adalat, as she was not authorized by the petitioner. However, C. Julie Malsawmdawngzeli was forced by the Members of the Lok Adalat to put her signature on behalf of the petitioner. Page No.# 4/5 9. Despite the veracity of above proposition not being to test, this Court finds that the petitioner was not present at the Lok Adalat on 11.09.2021 and neither had he put his signature on the said Award. Further, there is nothing to show that any separate settlement had been arrived at between the parties. There is also nothing to show that the petitioner had given permission to anyone to sign the Award on his behalf. 10. In the case of State of Punjab & Another Vs. Jalour Singh & Others, reported in (2008) 2 SCC 660, the Supreme Court has held that where an agreement is made by the Lok Adalat in terms of a settlement arrived at between the parties (which is duly signed by the parties and annexed to the Award of the Lok Adalat), it becomes final and binding on the parties and the settlement 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 a settlement, it can only be done 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, the same cannot be said to be an Award of the Lok Adalat in terms of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. 11. The Supreme Court has thus held that unless a settlement had been made and Award passed in terms of a settlement or compromise under Section 20(3) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, such an Award cannot be said to be an Award, as it has been made contrary to law and beyond the power and jurisdiction to the Lok Adalat. An Award made in the absence of any settlement Page No.# 5/5 would be void in the eyes of law. 12. In the present case, there is nothing to show that any settlement has been arrived at between the parties and signed by the parties, on the basis of which the Award dated 11.09.2021 could have been issued. Further, the Award dated 11.09.2021 also does not contain the signature of the petitioner and in fact contains the signature of one C. Julie Malsawmdawngzeli over the name Zosiamliana (petitioner). 13. In that view of the matter, the Award dated 11.09.2021 having been made in violation of Section 20(3) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, the same is void, as the Award cannot be said to be an Award in terms of Section 20(3) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The impugned Award is accordingly set aside. 14. The matter is remanded back to the Lok Adalat, Lunglei, who shall attempt a compromise afresh between the parties. If no compromise/settlement is forthcoming, the matter may be sent back to the learned Trial Court for disposal as per law. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant