P.R. Aniyan v. District Legal Services Authority, Pathanamthitta and Others

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1943** ## **WP(C).No.27467 OF 2020(G)** ## **PETITIONER:** **P.R. ANIYAN, AGED 72 YEARS, ARCHANA VEEDU, AYROOR VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT PEEDIKAYIL BUILDING, FLAT NO.4, TOP OF FEDERAL BANK, MANAKALA P.O., ADOOR, PIN-691551.** **BY ADVS. SRI.JACOB P.ALEX SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX SHRI.MANU SANKAR P.** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY, PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX, MINI CIVIL STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689645. 2 ANIL KUMAR, S/O.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, PEKKAVUMKAL VEEDU, AYROOR VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689612. 3 KRISHNAKUMARI, W/O.ANIL KUMAR, PEKKAVUMKAL VEEDU, AYROOR VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689612.** WP(C) No.27467/2020 : 2 : **4 ANOOJA ANIYAN, D/O.P.R.ANIYAN, ARCHANA VEEDU, AYROOR VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT PEEDIKAYIL BUILDING, FLAT NO.4, TOP OF FEDERAL BANK, MANAKALA P.O., ADOOR, PIN-691551.** **R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.M. RASHMI R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW DEVASSI R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.ABY J AUGUSTINE R4 BY ADV. SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL R4 BY ADV. SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-04-2021, THE COURT ON 09-04-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C) No.27467/2020 : 3 : ## **J U D G M E N T** ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ## _**Dated this the 9[th] day of April, 2021**_ The petitioner, who is a 72 year old senior citizen, seeks to declare that Ext.P2 Award dated 19.11.2020 of the Lok Adalat in PLP No.1265/2020 is void and non-est in law and not binding on the petitioner. 2. The petitioner submits that he is aged and sick with low eye sight and difficulty in walking. His wife is suffering from low Sodium condition and Trigeminal Neuro illness. The petitioner has only one daughter and her younger daughter is suffering from 80% disability and is undergoing treatment for fits. The family needs frequent hospital visits, but respondents 2 and 3 were objecting to plying of vehicles to petitioner’s house. 3. The petitioner and his daughter, the 4[th] respondent herein, filed a PLP before the District Legal Services Authority, WP(C) No.27467/2020 : 4 : (DLSA) against respondents 2 and 3. The petitioner states that there is a way of 14 feet width and 60 metres length for the last 30 years, which was being used by the petitioner openly, continuously and uninterruptedly. The petitioner has an easementary right over the way. Therefore, the petitioner along with his daughter filed Pre-Litigation Petition. 4. The Lok Adalat of District Legal Services Authority, Pathanamthitta passed an Award after striking out the name of the petitioner, prevailing over his daughter. The Lok Adalat overlooked the fact that the petitioner has a legal right over the way. The petitioner would contend that as per Regulation 33(1) of the Kerala Legal Service Authority Regulations, 1998, every Award of Lok Adalat shall be signed by the parties to the disputes and the panel constituting the Lok Adalat. Ext.P2 Award does not contain the signature of the petitioner, who is the 1[st] petitioner in the PLP. The petitioner has not consented to strike out his name from the PLP. Therefore, Ext.P2 Award is void and non-est in law. It is liable to be quashed, contended the petitioner. WP(C) No.27467/2020 : 5 : 5. Respondents 2 and 3 filed counter affidavit and resisted the writ petition. Respondents 2 and 3 would submit that the petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands. He has arrayed his daughter as 4[th] respondent in the writ petition. The petitioner has colluded with the 4[th] respondent. The agreement before the Lok Adalat was voluntary. The 4[th] respondent represented the petitioner before the Lok Adalat. 6. Respondents 2 and 3 pointed out that in the concluding portion of Ext.P1, it has been stated that since the writ petitioner is not in a position to travel, he has entrusted all matters concerning the case to his daughter who is the 4[th] respondent herein. The petitioner admittedly authorised the 4[th] respondent to prosecute the case before the Lok Adalat. After authorising so and after the 4[th] respondent arriving at a settlement on behalf of the petitioner also, the petitioner cannot turn around and submit that the Award is bad in law. Respondents 2 and 3 emphatically denied the allegation that there is a road having a width of 14 feet and the length of 60 WP(C) No.27467/2020 : 6 : metres for gaining access to residential house of the petitioner. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 8. The learned Government Pleader filed a memo producing statement of facts on behalf of Secretary, District Legal Services Authority. The statement discloses as follows:- “Furthermore it may kindly be noted from Ext.P1 PLP that due to the old age ailments he is unable to walk and hence the day to day affairs of his family is taken care of by his daughter. In the above stated circumstances, it is submitted that considering the pathetic health condition and urgent need of the first petition, in his absence, striking out his name, with bonafide intention not causing any delay, on the second posting date of Ext.P1 itself, with consent and knowledge of second petitioner in Ext.P1 the matter in dispute was compromised and accordingly award passed.” 9. The proceedings before the Lok Adalat organised by the 1[st] respondent-State Legal Services Authority, is governed by the Kerala Legal Services Authority Regulations, 1998. Regulation 33(1) states that every Award of Lok Adalat shall be signed by the parties to the disputes and the panel WP(C) No.27467/2020 : 7 : constituting the Lok Adalat. The petitioner herein is the 1[st] petitioner in PLP No.1265/2020. Ext.P2 Award does not contain the signature of the petitioner. 10. The contention of respondents 2 and 3 that the petitioner had authorised the 4[th] respondent to prosecute the case on his behalf and the 4[th] respondent has signed Ext.P2 on behalf of the petitioner also, cannot be accepted in view of the specific provision contained in the Kerala Legal Services Authority Regulations, 1998. 11. This Court considered the issue in _**Mary Gomas v. Vaitus** [2020 (6) KLT 568]_ . After considering the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, this Court held as follows:- “15. In the instant case, Ext.P1 award is signed only by the plaintiffs and the second defendant. The other defendants in the suit had not signed it. The award itself shows that the plaintiffs and the second defendant had settled the case and it was on the basis of such settlement that Ext.P1 award was passed by the Lok Adalat. 16. While passing Ext.P4 order, the lower court has made a literal interpretation of Section 21(2) of the Act to find that Ext.P1 award is binding on “all the parties to the dispute” and it is binding on those parties to the suit who have not even signed the award. WP(C) No.27467/2020 : 8 : 17. If the expression “all the parties to the dispute” in Section 21(2) of the Act is given a literal interpretation, absurd results may sometimes follow. While interpreting the expression “all the parties to the dispute” in Section 21(2) of the Act, it would be necessary to consider who are the parties to the award and who have signed it. If the award is passed by the Lok Adalat on the basis of the compromise of settlement entered into between the plaintiff and one of the several defendants, a literal interpretation of the expression “all the parties to the dispute” in Section 21(2) of the Act would lead to the result that the award is binding on the defendants who were not parties to the compromise of settlement and who have not signed the award. It can never be the intention of the Legislature in using the expression “all the parties to the dispute” in Section 21(2) of the Act.” ## In the said judgment, this Court further proceeded to consider the implication of the Award on the ongoing proceedings and held as follows:- “26. An award passed by the Lok Adalat on the basis of compromise or settlement between the plaintiff and one of the several defendants shall certainly be deemed to be a decree by virtue of Section 21(1) of the Act. But, such an award, which is deemed to be a decree, conclusively determines the rights of the plaintiff only a against the defendant who has signed it. Such an award does not completely dispose of the suit.” ## In view of the above judgment of this Court, Ext.P2 Award is ## non-est in law in so far as the petitioner is concerned. WP(C) No.27467/2020 : 9 : In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed declaring that Ext.P2 Award is non-est as against the petitioner and that the Award cannot be enforced against the petitioner. Sd/- **N. NAGARESH, JUDGE** aks/07.04.2021 WP(C) No.27467/2020 : 10 : ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF PLP NO.1265/2020 BEFORE THE DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY, PATHANAMTHITTA.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 19.11.2020 PASSED BY THE LOK ADALAT HELD AT PATHANAMTHITTA BY THE DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY IN PLP NO.1265/2020.** SR