Bini v State of Kerala and The Assistant Engineer, PWD(ROADS), Ernakulam

1 OPC 1634 OF 2020 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 19TH KARTHIKA, 1942** ## **OP(C).No.1634 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN LAR 150/2009 OF III ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **BINI AGED 48 YEARS D/O. LATE RAMACHANDRAN, RAJALAYAM, NEELANGATTU THUNDIYIL, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM.** **BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SREEKUMAR** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), N.H. III, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 021** **2 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PWD(ROADS), SUB DIVISION, ERNAKULAM-682 021** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI.SYAM G.RAM, GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 2 OPC 1634 OF 2020 ## **C.S.DIAS, J. ====================== OP(C) No. 1634 of 2020 ====================== Dated this the 10[th] day of November, 2020.** ## **JUDGMENT** This original petition is filed to direct the respondents to comply with the terms of Ext P3 award dated 14.10.2019 and pay the petitioner an amount of Rs 8,32,318/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand Three Hundred and Eighteen only). 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, in the original petition is that, in connection with the widening of the National Highway, the petitioner's property was acquired by the first respondent. As the petitioner disputed the adequacy of compensation awarded, the matter was referred to the Court. By award dated 22.7.2010, the Reference Court was pleased to enhance the compensation. The petitioner filed EP No.68/2017 to execute the award. The first respondent admitted before the Execution Court that 3 OPC 1634 OF 2020 an amount of Rs.7,70,132/- was due to the petitioner and that a request was made to the Requisitioning Authority to pay the amount. As the commitment was not fulfilled, the petitioner put the State's property to sale. On 4.12.2019, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalath, Ernakulam. Before the Adalath, the respondents agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 8,32,318/to the petitioner on or before 30.4.2020. Accordingly, Ext.P3 award dated 14.10.2019 was passed. Consequently, the execution petition was closed. However, the respondents did not comply with the undertaking which has caused severe prejudice and hardship to the petitioner. Hence, the respondents may be directed to pay the amount due under Ext P3. 3. Even though this Court by order dated 3.11.2020 had directed the learned Government Pleader to file a report, no report/counter affidavit has been filed. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader 4 OPC 1634 OF 2020 appearing for the respondents. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has exhausted all her remedies as contemplated under the Code of Civil Procedure. The respondents are willfully attempting to protract the petitioner from enjoying the fruits of the decree and award on one pretext or the other. As the execution proceeding has culminated in the award passed by the Lok Adalath, the respondents are estopped from resiling from their undertaking and are bound to honour their undertaking. 6. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submitted that it is only due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the respondents are unable to keep up to their financial commitment as undertaken in Ext P3. The petitioner has already filed an application to resurrect the execution proceedings as discernible from Ext P4 order, therefore, this original petition is unwarranted. The petitioner may be relegated to pursue the alternative remedy. Nevertheless, the 5 OPC 1634 OF 2020 respondents will pay the amount due under Ext P3, within a reasonable time. 7. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner's property was acquired for the purpose of widening of the National Highway as early as in 2006. The award was passed on 3.10.2008. Subsequently, in the year 2010, the Reference Court by its judgment in LAR 150/2009 refixed the compensation. The petitioner filed Ext P1 execution proceedings before the Execution Court and the State's property was put to sale. It was at that juncture, the respondents agreed to pay the decree amount of Rs 8,32,318/- on or before 30.4.2020, and Ext P3 award was passed by the Lok Adalath. Undisputedly, the respondents failed to satisfy Ext.P3 or have not approached the Adalath, seeking enlargement of time to pay the amount due under Ext P3. 8. The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act') was enacted by the Parliament with the aim and object, inter alia, to ensure that justice is 6 OPC 1634 OF 2020 not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities. The respondents – the State who should front runners to implement the Act - after conceding to the alternative dispute resolution mechanism provided under the Act, cannot at this stage reprobate and contend that the petitioner has to resurrect the proceedings under the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner, an hapless woman, cannot be made to run from pillar to post for getting the value and compensation of her invaluable which was acquired by the State in exercise of its eminent domain powers. 9. In **Nima Venkateswarlu vs Devi Reddy Krishnayya @ Venkata Krishnayya [ 2007 KHC 6951]** the High Court of Andra Pradesh has held that an award passed by a Lok Adalath is final and binding on the parties in view of Sec.21(2) of the Act, and that when the parties on their own volition fixed the date for payment, the Court does not have a role to enlarge the time period under Sec.148 of the Code of Civil 7 OPC 1634 OF 2020 Procedure. 10. According to me, the ratio in the above decision applies on all fours to the facts of the case. 11. The respondents on their own free will and volition, as evident in Ext.P3, have agreed to pay the decree amount on or before 30.4.2020. It is too late in day for the respondents to now resile from their undertaking and contend that the petitioner has an alternative remedy or that they need further time. If such a course is permitted, it would lead to travesty of justice and render the benevolent legislation otiose. The State should be last person to take up such a contention. 12. Therefore, in exercise of the extra-ordinary and supervisory powers of this Court, as enshrined under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, I direct the respondents to deposit an amount of Rs 8,32,318/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand Three Hundred and Eighteen only) in EP No.68/2017 in LAR 150/2009 before the Court of the 8 OPC 1634 OF 2020 Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ## **Sd/-** Sks/10.11.2020 **C.S.DIAS JUDGE** 9 OPC 1634 OF 2020 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE STATE DATED 30.05.2018.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 17.01.2019. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD PASSED BY THE LOK ADALATH DATED 14.10.2019. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.10.2020 RESTORING EP NO. 68/2017**