KOMARAMJERI PEDAMUNUSWAMY Vs. GOVT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioners moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings in R.C.A.No.3831/84 dated 30-8-1997 of the 2nd respondent as arbitrary, illegal, unfair and unjust and contrary to the provisions of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter in short referred to as Act and to direct the 2nd respondent to re-determine and pay the said amount to the petitioners and to pass such other suitable orders.

(2.) Sri Ravindranath Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the petitioners would submit that the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained for the reason that the view expressed by the 2nd respondent that Section 28-A of the Act is not applicable and cannot be invoked in the present case in view of the fact that L.G.O.P.No.287/88 was disposed of by the Lok Adalat following a different procedure and such compromise arrived between the parties before the Lok Adalat would not fall within the meaning of Section 28-A of the Act, cannot be sustained for the reason that even Lok Adalat should be deemed to be a Civil Court for all practical purpose and hence the narrow construction of the said provision cannot be justified. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on Board of Trustees of the Port of Visakhapatnam Vs. Presiding Officer, Permanent, Lok Adalat-Cum-Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Visakhapatnam and Another (2000 (5) ALT 577) and had drawn the attention of this Court to different provisions of Legal Services Authorities Act 1987 and also the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder in this regard.

(3.) Per contra the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition would contend that unless the conditions under Section 28-A of the Act are satisfied, the writ petitioners are not entitled to the benefits under the said provision. The learned Counsel also pointed out that though other conditions are satisfied inasmuch as the matter referred to had been settled in Lok Adalat and not before a Court, the deemed provision under the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987 cannot be taken advantage of and hence Section 28-A of the Act cannot be said to be attracted in the present case. Heard the Counsel.