http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  4718 of 2004

PETITIONER: State of Punjab and Ors.

RESPONDENT: Phulan Rani and Anr.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/08/2004

BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & C.K. THAKKER

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

(Arising out of SLP) No. 17738/2003)

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J

       Leave granted.

       A simple matter has unnecessarily been complicated as a result of  which there has been inordinate delay in disposing of the matter.           A writ petition No.13555/1994 was filed by respondent No.1. Phulan  Rani. She had claimed pension payable after demise of her husband who was  employed as a Tubewell operator.  The services of late Mohinder Singh  Walia were terminated some time in the year 1983 on the ground that  Tubewells  Punjab Irrigation Department was transferred to the Punjab State  Tubewell Corporation (respondent No.2 herein). However, the High Court  of Punjab and Haryana directed re-appointment of late Mohinder Singh  Walia and consequentially he was absorbed in the Punjab State Tubewell  Corporation. According to Phulan Devi, her husband died on 18.12.1992  after retirement in 1989. The claim of pension having been rejected by the  Corporation and the State, she filed a Civil Writ Petition No.13555/94 which  came to be disposed of by Lok Adalat on 18.1.2000.  The State of Punjab  filed a review application taking the stand that it was not properly  represented in the proceedings. In any event, there being dispute about  entitlement of the pension, the writ petition could not have been disposed of  by the Lok Adalat.  The review petition was rejected on 8.9.2000. A writ  petition was filed by the State of Punjab before the Punjab and Haryana  High Court questioning legality of the disposal by the Lok Adalat. The writ  petition was numbered as Civil Writ Petition No.4708/2002. The High Court  held that even if it is accepted that the disposal by the Lok Adalat was not  the proper course, yet on merits the respondent no.1 herein was entitled to  relief.

       In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted  that the matter could not have been disposed of by the Lok Adalat in view of  the specific provisions contained in Section 20 of The Legal Services  Authorities Act, 1987 (in short the ’Act’).

       Per contra, Mr. S.D. Sharma, learned senior counsel for respondent  No.1 submitted that the High Court has rightly proceeded on the basis that  even if the matter could not have been disposed of by the Lok Adalat, there  is nothing wrong, in the ultimate result holding that she was entitled to  pension.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

       The matters which can be taken up by the Lok Adalat for disposal are  enumerated in Section 20 of the Act which reads as follows:                 "Cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats:-

(1)     Where in any case referred to in clause (i) of sub-section  (5) of Section 19-

(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or   (b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to  the Court, for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for  settlement and if such Court is prima facie satisfied  that there are chances of such settlement; or

(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate  one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat,

The Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat:

Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok  Adalat under sub-clause (b) of clause (i) or clause (ii) by  such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity  of being heard to the parties.

(2)     Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for  the time being in force, the Authority or Committee  organizing the Lok Adalat under sub-section (1) of  Section 19 may, on receipt of an application from any  one of the parties to any matter referred to in clause (ii)  of sub-section (5) of section 19 that such matter needs to  be determined by a Lok Adalat, refer such matter to the  Lok Adalat, for determination:

       Provided that no matter shall be referred to the Lok  Adalat except after giving a reasonable opportunity of  being heard to the other party.

(3)     Where any case is referred to a Lok Adalat under sub- section (1) or where a reference has been made to it  under sub-section (2), the Lok Adalat shall proceed to  dispose of the case or matter and arrive at a compromise  or settlement between the parties.

(4)     Every Lok Adalat shall, while determining any reference  before it under this Act, act with utmost expedition to  arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties  and shall be guided by the principles of justice, equity,  fair play and other legal principles.

(5)     Where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the  ground that no compromise or settlement could be  arrived at between the parties, the record of the case shall  be returned by it to the Court, from which the reference  has been received under sub-section (1) for disposal in  accordance with law.

(6)     Where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the  ground that no compromise or settlement could be  arrived at between the parties, in a matter referred to in  sub-section (2), that Lok Adalat shall advice the parties  to seek remedy in a Court.

(7)     Where the record of the case is returned under sub-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

section (5) to the Court, such Court shall proceed to deal  with such case from the stage which was reached before  such reference under sub-section (1)."                    The specific language used in sub-section (3) of Section 20 makes it  clear that the Lok Adalat can dispose of a matter by way of a compromise or  settlement between the parties.  Two crucial terms in sub-sections (3) and (5)  of Section 20 are "compromise" and "settlement".  The former expression  means settlement of differences by mutual concessions.  It is an agreement  reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims by reciprocal  modification of demands.  As per Termes de la Ley, "compromise is a  mutual promise of two or more parties that are at controversy.  As per  Bouvier it is "an agreement between two or more persons, who, to avoid a  law suit, amicably settle their differences, on such terms as they can agree  upon".  The word "compromise" implies some element of accommodation  on each side.  It is not apt to describe total surrender.  (See Re NFU  Development Trust Ltd. (1973) 1 All ER 135(Ch.D).  A compromise is  always bilateral and means mutual adjustment.  "Settlement" is termination  of legal proceedings by mutual consent.  The case at hand did not involve  compromise or settlement and could not have been disposed of by Lok  Adalat.  If no compromise or settlement is or could be arrived at, no order  can be passed by the Lok Adalat. Therefore, the disposal of the Writ Petition  No. 13555/1994 filed by respondent No.1 is clearly impermissible.  

       What was challenged in Writ Petition 4708/2002 to which this appeal  relates related to the powers of disposal of cases by the Lok Adalat.  In view  of findings recorded that matter could not have been disposed of by the Lok  Adalat, High Court ought to have directed restoration of writ petition filed  by Phulan Devi i.e. Civil Writ Petition No. 13555/1994 for disposal in  accordance with law.

       Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that prevaricating  stands have been taken by the State and the Corporation. It is really of no  consequence in view of the clear language contained in sub-section (3) and  (5) of Section 20.           The inevitable result is that appeal has to be allowed. The impugned  judgment is set aside. It cannot be lost sight of that a matter relating to  pension is pending for long.  Let Writ Petition 13555/94 be restored to its  original position. The High Court is requested to dispose of the writ petition  within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.  The  appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.