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

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  563 of 2005

PETITIONER: State of Punjab and Ors.                                                 

RESPONDENT: Mohinderjit Kaur                                                         

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/01/2005

BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of SLP (C) No.21931 of 2004)

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J

       Leave granted.

       The respondent filed Civil Writ Petition No.15741/2003 before the  Punjab and Haryana High Court, seeking a direction to the present  appellants to allow family pension to her from the date of her husband late  Shri Joginder Singh along with interest @18% from the date of accrual till  the date of realization and other benefits. In support of the claim, respondent  placed reliance on a decision of the High Court in the case of State of Punjab  and Ors. v. Phulan Rani and Anr. (CWP No.4708/2002 decided on  26.5.2003). Though it was brought to the notice of the High Court that  special leave petition was filed against the High Court’s order dated  26.5.2003, the High Court proceeded to dispose of the matter relying on the  decision in the earlier case noted i.e. State of Punjab and Ors. v. Phulan Rani  and Anr. It was held that the case was squarely covered by the decision in  Phulan Rani’s case (supra).

       It is to be noted that the writ petition in Phulan Rani’s case (supra)  was disposed of at the Lok Adalat and the writ petition to recall the order  passed by the Lok Adalat was rejected and a review application made also  met the same fate. The matter was agitated by the appellant-State before this  Court contending that the writ petition could not have been disposed of at  the Lok Adalat.  

       This Court held that the course adopted by the High Court was not  proper. In State of Punjab and Ors. v. Phulan Rani and Anr. (JT 2004 (6) SC  214) it was indicated as to which matters can be taken up by the Lok Adalat  for disposal. It was inter alia held as follows:

"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

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

(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-section (5) to the Court, such Court shall

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

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. "

       In Phulan Rani’s case (supra) writ petition was restored to its original  position and the High Court was requested to dispose of the writ petition  within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order.

       In the instant case the High Court has merely relied on Phulan Rani’s  case (supra) and held that merely because Phulan Rani’s case (supra) was  pending before this Court, there was no reason to defer the decision in the  writ petition filed by the present respondent.

                Since the decision in Phulan Rani’s case (supra) has been set aside,  the natural consequence is that the impugned judgment cannot stand.  The  same is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the High Court.  It shall hear  the matter afresh and dispose of the same in accordance with law. The  appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.