Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Saroj Devi and ors Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.

Saroj Devi and ors vs State of Jharkhand and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Jharkhand Decided Sep 17, 2012
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/972008

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Jharkhand High Court
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Saroj Devi and ors

Respondent

State of Jharkhand and ors.

Excerpt

.....the part of the order dated 21.10.2005 (annexure-5) passed by the permanent lok adalat, ranchi in p.l.a. case no. 175 of 2005 and for further directing the respondents to pay the admitted dues to the petitioners in pursuance of the aforesaid order dated.3. from perusal of the aforesaid order and after hearing the learned counsel for the respondents, it appears that the permanent lok adalat, ranchi has decided the said case on merits allowing payment of rs. 53,394.10 towards transportation charges as well as releasing rs. 50,000/- being the value of the security deposit in the form of national saving certificate, to the original petitioner. however, permanent lok adalat has refused to allow claim application in respect of other claims by passing order on merits. counsel for the respondents by referring to the averments made in the counter affidavit, submits that the petitioners are not entitled to other reliefs learned counsel further submits that an fir was also lodged against the original petitioner for committing certain offences i.e. for not supplying 35 drums of soyabin oil (annexure-f).4. from the bare perusal of the provisions of legal services authorities act, 1987, it is apparent that the award of the permanent lok adalat is final either rendered on merits or in terms of a settlement agreement entered into between the parties and is binding upon the parties. section-22(e) of the legal services authorities act, 1987 is quoted herein-below. 22-e. award of permanent lok adalat to be final.- (1) every award of the permanent lok adalat under this act made either on merit or in terms of a settlement agreement shall be final and binding on all the parties thereto and on persons claiming under them. (2) every award of the permanent lok adalat under this act shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court. (3) the award made by the permanent lok adalat under this act shall be by a majority of the persons constituting the permanent lok adalat. (4) every award.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 6888 of 2005 --- Saroj Devi & others --- --- --- Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & others --- ---- --- Respondents --- CORAM: The Honble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Petitioners: None For the State: JC to SC-1 --- 7/ 17.09.2012 No one appears on behalf of the petitioners in spite of revised call. However, counsel for the respondent State is present.

2. Petitioners have challenged the part of the order dated 21.10.2005 (Annexure-5) passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Ranchi in P.L.A. Case No. 175 of 2005 and for further directing the respondents to pay the admitted dues to the petitioners in pursuance of the aforesaid order dated.

3. From perusal of the aforesaid order and after hearing the learned counsel for the respondents, it appears that the Permanent Lok Adalat, Ranchi has decided the said case on merits allowing payment of Rs. 53,394.10 towards transportation charges as well as releasing Rs. 50,000/- being the value of the security deposit in the form of National Saving Certificate, to the original petitioner. However, Permanent Lok Adalat has refused to allow claim application in respect of other claims by passing order on merits. Counsel for the respondents by referring to the averments made in the counter affidavit, submits that the petitioners are not entitled to other reliefs Learned counsel further submits that an FIR was also lodged against the original petitioner for committing certain offences i.e. for not supplying 35 drums of Soyabin Oil (Annexure-F).

4. From the bare perusal of the provisions of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, it is apparent that the Award of the Permanent Lok Adalat is final either rendered on merits or in terms of a settlement agreement entered into between the parties and is binding upon the parties. Section-22(E) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 is quoted herein-below. 22-E. Award of Permanent Lok Adalat to be final.- (1) Every award of the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act made either on merit or in terms of a settlement agreement shall be final and binding on all the parties thereto and on persons claiming under them. (2) Every award of the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act shall be deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court. (3) The award made by the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act shall be by a majority of the persons constituting the Permanent Lok Adalat. (4) Every award made by the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act shall be final and shall not be called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceeding. (5) The Permanent Lok Adalat may transmit any award made by it to a Civil Court having local jurisdiction and such Civil Court shall execute the order as if it were a decree made by the Court.] 5. It appears that certain portion of the Award are in favour of the petitioner. As per the aforesaid provisions, a decree holder is entitled to enforce the same as provided under section 22(E) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. However, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the Award which has become final upon adjudication of the dispute on merits.

6. In view of the aforesaid legal position, this writ petition is misconceived and no relief can be granted to the petitioners. Accordingly, it is dismissed (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J) Ranjeet/

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial