The Supreme Court has set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s orders that had refused to entertain a writ petition challenging a Lok Adalat decree related to a disputed property transaction in Jabalpur. The Court held that a Lok Adalat award treated as a decree under the Legal Services Authorities Act can be challenged only before the High Court under Articles 226/227, and not through execution proceedings or any ordinary civil remedies.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta held that the High Court erred in declining to examine the petitioner’s challenge on the ground that objections were already filed before the Executing Court. The Court clarified that executing courts have no jurisdiction to annul or reopen a Lok Adalat award, and objections filed to prevent dispossession cannot be treated as an “alternative remedy.”
The appellant, a bona fide purchaser in possession, had challenged a compromise decree passed by the Lok Adalat on 14 May 2022 allegedly procured by fraud and behind his back which had led to execution proceedings for delivery of possession. Both the Single as well as Division Benches held against the appellant holding that he must agitate the matter before the executing Court in execution proceedings where already objections have been filed to the validity of the decree.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the only legally recognized mode to assail a Lok Adalat award is via writ jurisdiction before the constitutional courts. The matter was remanded to the Madhya Pradesh High Court for fresh consideration on merits as expeditiously as possible.
The Court further directed that the appellant withdraws execution-objections within four weeks and ordered that he shall not be dispossessed from the property until the High Court decides the matter afresh on merits.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Siddharth R Gupta, Adv.; Mr. Sankalp Kochar, Adv.; Mr. Siddhant Kochar, Adv.; Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar, AOR; Mr. Aman Agarwal, Adv.; Mr. Uddaish Palya, Adv.; Mr. Aditya Sidhra, Adv.; Ms. Surbhi Saxena, Adv.; Mr. Siddharth Sahu, Adv.; Ms. Astha Singh, Adv; Mr. Nr Shwetabh, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Abhijeet Shrivastava, AOR; Mr. Anshuman Shrivastava, Adv.; Mr. Malik Arjun Khare, Adv.; Ms. Shruti Verma, Adv.; Ms. Ananya Sahu, Adv.
Mr. Boudhik Garg, Adv.; Mr. Shashank S Dwivedi, Adv.; Mr. Atharva Joshi, Adv.; Ms. Kavya Verma, Adv.
Mr. Pallav Sishodiya, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Kunal Verma, AOR; Mrs. Yugandhara Pawar Jha, Adv.; Ms. Yasha Goyal, Adv.; Ms. Swati Mishra, Adv.
Mr. A.K. Sanghi, Sr. Adv.; Mr. V. Sridhar Reddy, Adv.; Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, AOR; Mr. Hardeep, Adv.; Mr. Deepak Bahl, Adv.
