Page No.# 1/11 GAHC030006302023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/144/2023 Smt. Lalsangzuali W/o Sh. H. Sanghmuaka, Permanent resident of CTI Sesawng P/A Chanmari West, Aizawl VERSUS Sh. Lalrohlua Zadeng and 4 Ors. S/o Sh. Hrangkima Zadeng (L) H/No. LKA6, Lower Kanaan, Aizawl 2:Smt. Lalzahawmi 3:Sh. Thangdailova 4:Smt. Vanrohril Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Lalruatpuia Sailo Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. Zodinpuia Hnamte for R5 Page No.# 2/11 JUDGMENT / ORDER Date : 02-09-2025 BEFORE HONORABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) Heard Mr. Lalruatpuia Sailo, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Linda Zothantluangi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. Zodinpuia Hnamte, learned counsel for the respondent No.5. 2. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court to quash and set aside the impugned Lok Adalat award dated 13.08.2022 passed in Lok Adalat (Pre) Case No.357/2022. 3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that in January 2018 the respondent No.5 had borrowed Rs.50,000/- from respondent No.1. While borrowing the money from respondent No.1, the respondent No.5 had requested the petitioner to allow her to use the petitioner’s Village Council House pass (hereinafter referred to as VC Pass for short) as mortgage against the loan. The respondent 5 could not repay the loan and the matter was taken up by the Sesawng Village Council Court. Thereafter, the village council of Sesawng in its sitting on 22.06.2019 mutated the VC pass owned by the petitioner into the name of respondent No.1. 4. Thereafter, the respondent No.5 wrote to the Member Secretary, Mizoram State Legal Service Authority (MSLSA) stating that she is now ready to repay the loan and prayed to resolve the dispute and to take necessary steps so that the land which has been mutated and sold remains with the present petitioner, the original holder of the VC pass. It was also stated in the application to the Page No.# 3/11 Member Secretary that respondent No.1 had already sold the VC pass to respondent no.3. 5. The petitioner further states that the Lok Adalat award dated 13.08.2022 recorded various terms and conditions in respect of the VC pass without mentioning the exact and complete details of the VC pass. The Lok Adalat award was also passed without any compromise or settlement between the parties. The Lok Adalat proceeding conducted on 13.08.2022 was conducted more like a judicial proceeding and in a biased manner. Being aggrieved by the Lok Adalat award dated 13.08.2022, the petitioner has come before this Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel Mr. Lalruatpuia Sailo for the petitioner and also Ms. Linda Zothantluangi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. Zodinpuia Hnamte, learned counsel for the respondent No.5. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that the village council had mutated the VC pass of the petitioner into the name of the respondent No.1 without following due process of law. It is stated that the VC pass cannot be mutated by the village council unless the petitioner had violated the terms and conditions of the pass. It is also stated that the village council could not have mutated the VC pass of the petitioner without giving her an opportunity of being heard and without adducing evdience. 8. The petitioner contends that the dispute with regard to the loan taken by respondent No.5 from respondent No.1 was heard by the village council on 22.06.2019. In the said meeting, the village council had come to a finding that the respondent No.5 had failed to repay the Rs.50,000 borrowed from respondent No.1 and therefore the house pass which was in the name of the petitioner shall be mutated in the name of Shri Lalrohlua/R.1. The respondent Page No.# 4/11 No.5 being aggrieved and dissatisfied with this finding of the village council had approached the Member Secretary, MSLSA for intervening in the matter. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent No.1 has further sold the VC pass to the respondent No.3. In the backdrop of such facts and circumstances, learned counsel submits that the Lok Adalat by the award dated 13.08.2022 has adjudicated the dispute by holding that it was agreed that the house pass presently owned by Shri Lalrohlua/R.1 be mutated in the name of C. Laltanpuia/R.4 whereas the fact is that the petitioner and R/5 had never agreed to the same. It is also the contention of the petitioner that she had never demanded any money from the respondent No.5. However, the Lok Adalat held that the petitioner had demanded Rs.4,50,000/- from the respondent No.5 and respondent No.5 was directed to pay Rs.50,000/- thousand to the petitioner immediately and the balance 4,00,000/- to be repaid monthly. 10. The petitioner also states that petitioner and respondent No.5 were not given a fair chance to submit their case by the Lok Adalat and it is categorically stated that the petitioner, the respondent No.5 and the respondent No.1 had never entered into a settlement to resolve the dispute in the manner in which the Lok Adalat passed the award dated 13.08.2022. 11. Being aggrieved by the award dated 13.08.2022, the petitioner had also filed an application on 18.08.2022 to the MSLSA seeking review of the Lok Adalat award dated 13.08.2022. But the same was not considered. 12. Learned counsel submits that according to Regulation No.7(3) and Regulation No.9 of the National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalat) Regulations 2009, the Lok Adalat has to bring about a conciliated settlement in every case put before it without giving any kind of coercion, threat, undue Page No.# 5/11 influence, allurement or misrepresentation. And the Lok Adalat shall have the power only to help the parties to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute and while doing so it shall not issue any direction or order in respect of such dispute between the parties. Moreover, in Regulation No.17 of the aforementioned regulations, it is also provided that drawing up of the award is merely an administrative act by incorporating the terms of settlement or compromise agreed by the parties under the guidance and assistance from the Lok Adalat and the members of the Lok Adalat shall ensure that the parties affix their signatures only after fully understanding the terms of settlement arrived at and recorded. The members of the Lok Adalat shall also satisfy themselves that the terms of settlement are not unreasonable or illegal or one sided. 13. The petitioner has relied upon the following authorities in support of his submissions:- 1. Durgam Rayalingo vs The Chairman Mandal Legal Services Committee Mancherial Adilaba district and others reported in 2018 SCC Online Hyd 369 2. B. Srinatha Reddy vs District Legal Services Authority, Kadapa, represented By its Secretary, Kadapa District and others reported in 2019 online AP 250 4. Shri Anjan Das (Dhupi) and others vs Sri Subrata Bhattacharjee and others reported in 2016 SCC online Tri 85 5. New India Assurance Co.Ltd vs Ramesh Chowrasia and Others reported in 2023 SCC online Del 8154 6. Balakrishna vs The Member Secretary, Lok Adalat, Jamkhandi Bagalkot District and Another reported in 2006 SCC online Kar 518 Page No.# 6/11 7. Sewa Singh vs Daily Lok Adalat (Bench No.1), Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh and others reported in 2015 SCC Online P & H 20855 8. Kiran Singh and Others vs Chaman Paswan and Others reported in (1954) 1 SCC 710 9. Aditya Narayan Thakur and Another vs Parasnath Thakur and Others reported in 2025 SCC online Jhar 495. 14. Learned Counsel submits that in the case of Balakrishna vrs Member Secretary (Supra) the High Court of Karnataka held that if any of the parties are not present before the Adalat, Conciliators in the Adalat cannot dispose of the matter. The contention of the petitioner is that all the parties to the dispute were not present in the Lok Adalat inasmuch as the respondent No.3 was not present and did not sign in the award. 15. In view of the above submissions and the judgments relied upon, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside of the impugned Lok Adalat award dated 13.08.2022. 16. The learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 has made her submissions on the basis of the affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Learned counsel submits that a bare perusal of the Lok Adalat award dated 13.08.2022 shows that the parties had agreed to mutate the House Pass in the name of the respondent No.4. It is further stated that the Lok Adalat award was passed with an aim to achieve and provide the best interest of the petitioner by allowing the petitioner’s daughter to continue to reside in the house till December 2023 and to receive the house rent till the month of August 2022. The award also recorded that the petitioner demanded Rs.4,50,000/- from the respondent No.5 as she had sold her land and the respondent No.5 handed over Page No.# 7/11 ₹50,000/- to the petitioner on the same day. The balance amount was to be repaid monthly. Hence, it is crystal clear that a compromise was achieved between the parties on 13.08.2022. 17. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 also submits that the very fact that the petitioner accepted Rs.50,000/- from the respondent No.5 on the same day proves that the award was passed with her consent. 18. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 has relied on the case of K. Srinivasappa & Ors vs M. Mallamma & Ors in Civil Appeal No.3486- 3488 of 2022, wherein the Supreme Court held that a writ petition would be maintainable against an award of the Lok Adalat when such writ petition has been filed alleging fraud in the manner of obtaining the award and the award of the Lok Adalat cannot be reversed or set aside without setting aside the facts recorded in such award as being fraudulently arrived at. Learned counsel therefore submits that in the present case there is no coercion, no misrepresentation and no fraud. The petitioner has agreed to the compromise and has put her signature in the award when she could have refused to append her signature if she was aggrieved and dissatisfied. The learned counsel therefore submits that the instant writ petition is without any merit and deserves to be dismissed. 19. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 has filed the affidavit- in-opposition and submits that R/5 had borrowed Rs.50,000/- from respondent No.1 and during the Lok Adalat she had carried Rs.50,000/- in cash to make payment to the respondent No.1. However, she was shocked and surprised when the conciliators directed her to give the said Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner and submitted that she was not given any chance to clarify and her consent was never obtained. The learned counsel for respondent No.5 submits that the Page No.# 8/11 conciliators forced her to put her signature on the award without informing her about the contents of the said award. Moreover, she was informed by the conciliators that she has no other option but to put her signature on the said award. 20. The respondent No.5 has also contended that in her letter to the Member Secretary, MSLSA, written on 25.07.2022, she had only stated that she is now in a position to re-pay the money which she has borrowed from the respondent No.1. However, when she was in the process of repaying the loan, the respondent No.1 had already sold the land to respondent No.3 and therefore, she had prayed to the Member Secretary to resolve the dispute and see that the land/VC pass which has been sold be in the hands of the petitioner. However, the Lok Adalat had passed an award without her consent or without making her understand the consequences of the said award. 21. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent No.5 was forced to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner and to pay another Rs. 4,00,000/- to be repaid monthly. Learned counsel therefore submits that the respondent No.5 also prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the impugned award dated 13.08.2022 may be quashed and set aside. 22. I have given due consideration to the submissions of the counsel for the parties. The Lok Adalat records, the pleadings and the judgments relied upon by the parties has also been examined. 23. It is evident from the NALSA (Lok Adalat) Regulations 2009 that the Lok Adalat has no adjudicatory or judicial functions. Their functions relate purely to conciliation. A Lok Adalat determines reference on the basis of a compromise or settlement between the parties and put its seal of confirmation by making an award in terms of the compromise or settlement. No Lok Adalat has the power Page No.# 9/11 to hear the parties and adjudicate cases like a Court. It simply discusses the matter with the parties and persuades them to arrive at a just settlement. 24. It is not disputed that the award of the Lok Adalat cannot be reversed or set aside unless the award is arrived at by misrepresentation, coercion, or fraud. However, this Court is of the view that the Lok Adalat is to be guided by the principles of justice, equity and fair play. The Lok Adalat cannot impose their views, as to what is just and equitable, on the parties. The Lok Adalat cannot proceed to pass orders on merits even when there is no consensus or settlement. It has to kept in mind that there was a dispute between the parties before the village court. Being dissatisfied with the findings of the village court, the respondent No.5 had approached the MSLSA for a favorable settlement. However, the Lok Adalat has directed the respondent No.5 to pay an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- to the petitioner. The Lok Adalat also gave a direction to mutate the name of the owner of the VC pass into the name of the respondent No.4 when this was the very grievance of respondent No.5 in her application to the Member Secretary, MSLSA. 25. A perusal of the Lok Adalat order sheet shows that an application had been received from R/5 against the respondents. And on 13.08.2022, the order sheet says, “Parties are present in person. After lengthy deliberation of the matter, the parties could have arrived at settlement”. There is no settlement or agreement on record. It appears that the matter was heard like a trial. Regulation No.17 of the NALSA Lok Adalat Regulations 2009 specifically provides that drawing up of the award is merely an administrative act incorporating the terms of settlement or compromise agreed by the parties. The members of the Lok Adalat are to also ensure that the parties affix their signatures only after fully understanding the terms of settlement arrived at and recorded. In the Page No.# 10/11 present case it is apparent from the records that the MSLSA was not approached by the R/5 with a settlement or compromise but with a request to settle the dispute and to ensure that petitioner gets back her VC pass. The R/5 stated that she had taken the ₹50,000/- in cash with her to the Lok Adalat to repay the R/1, but the Award directed her to pay Rs.4,50,000/- to the petitioner. It is also clear that the R/5 and the petitioner did not understand the import or consequences of the impugned Award. 26. Another factor which has to be kept in mind is that the petitioner had approached the member Secretary MSLSA praying for review of the Lok Adalat award dated 13.08.2022. This shows that there was no settlement or compromise between the parties and that the award made by the Lok Adalat was not an award in terms of any settlement. 27. This Court has also observed that all the parties to the dispute were not before the Lok Adalat as respondent No.3 did not appear before the Lok Adalat nor did he put his signature. 28. It is therefore the view of this Court that the Lok Adalat has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it. The Lok Adalat had passed an order on merits without consensus or settlement. It even went further by directing the respondent No.5 to pay an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- to the petitioner, whereas the respondent No.5 has clearly stated on affidavit that she had carried Rs.50,000/- in cash to repay her loan to the respondent No.1. The Lok Adalat has not passed the Award exercising the principles of justice, equity and fair play. In such circumstances it cannot be said that the award was passed on settlement between the parties. Page No.# 11/11 29. In view of the above discussions and observations, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned Lok Adalat award dated 13.08.2022 passed in Lok Adalat (Pre) Case No.357/2022 is quashed and set aside. 30. The writ petition is disposed of. No order as to cost. 31. Registry is directed to send back the records of the Lok Adalat. JUDGE Comparing Assistant