The Telangana High Court stated that Lok Adalat does not have the authority to make judgments. Its role is limited to promoting conciliation and helping parties reach a settlement.
The Telangana High Court explained that Lok Adalat does not have the authority to make decisions and its main job is to help the parties reach an agreement. The court canceled the order from the Mandal Legal Services Committee / Junior Civil Judge at Bhainsa (MLSC) because it acted like an execution petition without following proper execution procedures. The Division Bench, consisting of Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice N. Tukaramji, stated, “The Mandal Legal Services Committee and Lok Adalats cannot accept cases that seek to enforce a judgment or decree.”
Advocate C. Anvesh Kiran represented the Petitioner, while Standing Counsel Shashi Kiran Pusluri represented the Respondent. In this case, the fourth respondent asked the second respondent / Tahsildar to ensure compliance with a decree from 2023 issued by the Civil Court. This decree granted her a 1/3rd share in the property involved in the partition suit. After the pre-litigation case was filed by the fourth respondent, the contested order was issued. The MLSC approved the pre-litigation case and instructed the second respondent to update the revenue records with the name of the fourth respondent and the other defendants. The petitioner then filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the MLSC’s order and the subsequent order from the District Collector.
The petitioners argued that the challenged order exceeded the authority granted to the MLSC / Lok Adalat under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, especially in a pre-litigation case. They also claimed that the order was invalid because a Lok Adalat can only issue decisions based on agreements, settlements, or compromises, which was not applicable in this situation. The Respondent’s Standing Counsel stated that the Lok Adalat’s role is limited to issuing compromise awards and cannot make decisions based on the merits of a case.
Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Punjab and Another vs. Jalour Singh and Others (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 660, the Bench noted that Lok Adalat does not have the authority to make adjudicatory decisions. Its primary function is to promote conciliation and facilitate settlements between parties. If no agreement is reached, the Lok Adalat cannot issue an award, and the case must return to the appropriate Court for proper resolution. The Bench concluded that the Mandal Legal Services Committee had overstepped its jurisdiction by taking on and deciding the P.L.C.
The Bench pointed out the laws in the Legal Services Authorities Act of 1987 and the National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalat) Regulations of 2009. It explained that the order made by the Mandal Legal Services Committee went beyond its authority and was not allowed under the Legal Services Authorities Act. The Bench stated, “The order being challenged is not a compromise or settlement. Instead, it seems to be a directive that instructs respondent No. 2 to complete the mutation process for respondent No. 4 within a set time. In simpler terms, the order in the writ petition acts more like a decision on an execution petition without following the usual execution process.”
Cause Title: Takur Laxmi and Others vs The Mandal legal Services Committee and Others. [Case No.: WRIT PETITION No.12116 of 2024]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates C.Anvesh Kiran & Manideep Madhavarapu
Respondent: Standing Counsel Shashi Kiran Pusluri, Special Government Pleader for Revenue
