2026 INSC 888

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7838 OF 2024

SINGAPOGU BABU RAO & ORS. …APPELLANTS

VERSUS

SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR

(LAND ACQUISITION) & ORS. …RESPONDENT S

J U D G M E N T

Civil Appeal No. 7838 of 2024 Page 1 of 30

J.B. PARDIWALA, J.

For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the

following parts:-

INDEX

I. FACTUAL MATRIX ............................................................................. 2

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS .................................. 10

III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS ...................... 11

IV. ANALYSIS ..................................................................................... 12

A. Whether the procedure adopted by the High Court refereeing the dispute

between the claimants to the Lok Adalat through Legal Service Committee was

correct in the eyes of law? ............................................................................... 14

B. Whether Order I Rule 8 or principles thereof could be said to be made applicable

in proceedings before the Lok Adalat? .............................................................. 26

V. CONCLUSION ................................................................................. 29

1. This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the

High Court of Telangana dated 17.08.2022 in Writ Petition No.

21315 of 2017 (hereinafter, “the impugned judgment ”) by

which the High Court dismissed the writ petition preferred by

the appellants herein and thereby affirmed the Lok Adalat

Award Nos. 452, 454, 455, 657, 658, 659, 661, 670, 671, 672,

673, 674, 675, 679, 680, 685 of 2016, respectively, passed by

the Lok Adalat Bench at Khammam in LAOP No. 619 of 2014

holding that the awards passed were proper in the eyes of law.

Civil Appeal No. 7838 of 2024 Page 2 of 30

I. FACTUAL MATRIX

2. It appears from the material on record that for the purpose of

carrying out mining operation to be undertaken by the

respondent no. 4 (Singareni Colleries Company Ltd.) , the

respondent no. 1 acquired a total of Acre 489.04 guntas

within the limits of Kommepalli, Sathuapalli Mandal. On

19.12.2010, notifications under Section 4(1) of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act, 1894”) were issued.

3. In accordance with Section 11 of the Act, 1894, the Land

Acquisition Officer passed the Award No. 04/2013 -2014

dated 30.12.2013 whereby the compensation was determined

at the rate of Rs. 3,48,935/- per acre. The award was referred

and numbered as LAOP No. 619 of 2014 to the Principal

District Judge, Khammam, under Sections 30 and 31 of the

Act, 1894, respectively, for resolution of title dispute and

apportionment of compensation.

4. The aforesaid award dated 30.12.2013 was challenged by

numerous pattadars and land owners before the High Court

vide W.P. No. 13942 of 2013 seeking setting aside of the

entire land acquisition proceedings and award dated

30.12.2013 (first writ petition). During the pendency of the writ

petition, as the respondent no. 4 proposed a settlement, the

matter was referred to the High Court Legal Service s

Committee (HCLSC). As a result, the claimants agreed to

receive Rs. 10,95,000/- per acre as compensation and

requested to resolve the title dispute.

Civil Appeal No. 7838 of 2024 Page 3 of 30

5. The Secretary of the HCLSC addressed a letter dated

22.05.2015 to the Chairman of the respondent no. 4 stating

that the Chief Justice had directed a coordination meeting

with all the concerned persons and to work out the modalities

to resolve the title dispute before the Lok Adalat.

6. From the Minutes of the Coordination Meeting held on

30.05.2015, it appears that the representatives of the

claimants-appellants herein, officials of the respondent no. 4,

and the Land Acquisition Officer agreed for enjoyment of

survey and also to resolve the dispute through Lok Adalat. It

has been recorded that such enjoyment of survey of Ac.

489.04 guntas would be with reference to individual extent

based on title deeds. The Minutes of Meeting conducted on

30.05.2015 read thus:-

“Today the District Judge-Cum-Chairman, District

Legal services Authority, Khammam, Joint

Collector-1 Khammam, Special Deputy Collector (

land Acquisition officer), Senior officials i.e. General

manager (Estates), Addl. General Manager

(Finance), Addl. General Manager (Law), Project

officer of SCCL, Advocates, and the representatives

of Claimants participated in the meeting.

It is mutually agre ed between the

representatives of the claimants and senior

officials of SCCL, LAO for enjoyment of Survey of

Ac.489-04 Gts. of Kistaram Village with the help of

Divisional forest officer concerned and for survey of

existing bore wells with the help of irrigation

department and also to resolve the dispute through

lokadalat on 13.06.2015.

Civil Appeal No. 7838 of 2024 Page 4 of 30

It is mutually agreed between the

representatives of the claimants and senior

officials of SCCL, LAO for enjoyment of survey of

Ac.489-04 Gts.of Kommepalli Village with

reference to individual extent based on title deeds

and it is also agreed for survey with reference to

structures, Bore wells, trees with the help of

irrigation department, Divisional forest officer

concerned and also to conduct grama sabha of

kommepalli village on 14.06.2015 in the presence

of the District Judge-Cum- Chairman, District Legal

Services Authority, Khammam, District Revenue

Authority, Khammam Telangana state Legal

Services Authority and High Court legal services

Committee within 20 days enabling the District

Legal Services Authority, Khammam to organize

Lok Adalat for resolution of dispute and passing

awards.

The District Administration, Khammam and

Management of SCCL shall give wide publicity in

the local print and Electronic Media about the

proposed Lok Adalat and Grama Sabha.

The Senior Officials of SCCL have agreed to

deposit the amount as per the awards within one

week of passing the awards enabling the District

Court to prepare individual A/c payee cheques in

favour of the Claimants of Kist aram and

Kommepalli Villages.”

7. In furtherance of the aforesaid, the respondent no. 4 deposited

the enhanced compensation in the Court of Principal District

Judge, Khammam, in reference case LAOP No. 619 of 2014.

Accordingly, the appellants proceeded with submitting their

Claim Statements under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act, 1894,

respectively.

Civil Appeal No. 7838 of 2024 Page 5 of 30

8. As a result of the aforementioned reference, the Lok Adalat

Bench at Khammam, on 29.03.2016, passed 16 awards for

Ac. 363 guntas which formed part of reference case O.P. No.

619 of 2014.

9. In light of the aforesaid settlement before the Lok Adalat, the

High Court vide order dated 07.04.2016 disposed of W.P. No.

13942 of 2013 and allied petitions recording that the claims

for compensation for the lands acquired by the respondent no.

4 have been settled in Lok Adalat. The said order reads thus:-

“Learned counsel for the petitioners, in these

petitions, state that their claims for compensation

for the lands acquired by the Singareni Colleries

Company Limited have already been settled and in

view of pendency of these writ petitions, the

acquiring body could not issue cheques in favour of

the petitioners. In view thereof, they pray for

disposal of these writ petitions as settled in the Lok

Adalat.

The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of

as settled in Lok Adalat. Interim orders, if any,

stand disposed of.”

10. Aggrieved by the aforesaid 16 awards passed by the Lok

Adalat Bench at Khammam in LAOP No. 619 of 2014, the

claimants preferred writ petition numbered as W.P. No.

21315 of 2017 seeking setting aside of the awards (second

writ petition). The main grievance of the petitioners was the

Land Acquisition Officer erred in passing the award without

ascertaining who are entitled to compensation and to what

extent. The matter was then referred to the Principal District

Civil Appeal No. 7838 of 2024 Page 6 of 30

Judge under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act, 1894, respectively.

Thereafter, instead of adjudicating the issue, the Principal

District Judge referred the dispute to Lok Adalat for

settlement. The impugned judgment before us arises from this

matter.

11. In the aforesaid matter, on 27.07.2017, it appeared to the

High Court that an error has been committed in passing the

award as the petitioners were not joined with the other

claimants in whose favour the awards were passed.

12. On 28.11.2017, the Principal District Judge, Khammam

addressed a letter to the High Court stating that all the

disputed title holders were neither made parties to the

settlement before the Lok Adalat nor signatories to the

awards. It was categorically noted that the direction arising

from the Coordination Meeting dated 30.05.2015 were

misunderstood. The Principal District Judge prayed the High

Court to pass appropriate orders on the awards passed in O.P.

No. 619 of 2014. The letter reads thus, which encapsulates

the root of the dispute:-

“[…]3. Submit that in coordination meeting which

was held before the Hon’ble High Court Legal

Services Committee, it was mutually agreed by the

representatives of claimants and senior officials of

Singareni Colleries Company Limited, Land

Acquisition Officer to conduct enjoyment survey of

acquired lands with reference to individual extents

referred. in title deeds and also survey with

reference to structures, borewells, trees with the

help of irrigation department and Divisional Forest

Civil Appeal No. 7838 of 2024 Page 7 of 30

Officer concerned and also to conduct gram sabha

in the presence of District Judge-cum-Chairman,

District Legal Services Authority, District Revenue

Authcrities and directed to submit report within

twenty days to enable the District Legal Services

Authority, Khammam to organize Lok Adalat for

resolution of dispute and passing of Awards.

4. I submit that consequent upon the said report,

the Lok Adalat were conducted to resolve disputes

by the District Legal Services Authority. In the lok

adalat the individual awards were passed in the

name of interest/title holders without recording

any terms of compromise and settlement among

the disputed claimants to resolve the title disputes.

Awards were passed as if the dispute was

between the Land Ac quisition Officer and

individual interest holder in the property acquired

with rival claimants.

5. I submit that the reference to the Lok Adalat was

two-fold; one is to record the compromise and

settlement with regard to quantum of

compensation and another is to record compromise

and settlement among the disputed title holders of

the property acquired falling under various survey

numbers. However, all the disputed title holders to

the acquired property were not joined to the

compromise and they were not signatories to the

awards.

xxx

9. I submit that all the awards passed by the

District Legal Services Authority did not contain the

signatures of the disputants who are at issue with

regard to title of the land acquired in particular for

each survey number. The awards were passed

basing on statements recorded basing upon the

enjoyment survey done by revenue authorities. The

direction of the coordination committee meeting of

Hon’ble High Court Legal Services Committee was

misunderstood. The direction for enjoyment survey

was to facilitate the resolution of disputes by the

Civil Appeal No. 7838 of 2024 Page 8 of 30

District Legal Services Authority by making all

parties who are at dispute with regard to title with

reference to each Survey Number of acquired

land.[…]”

(Emphasis is ours)

13. Pursuant to the aforesaid letter, one another batch of writ

petitions captioned as W.P. No. 13976 of 2018 before the

High Court questioned the failure of the Revenue Department

(Land Acquisition) to disburse the amount of compensation

payable in terms of the Lok Adalat Awards dated 29.03.2016

(third writ petition). On 13.04.2018, the Court directed the

Principal District Judge, Khammam, to disburse the amounts

deposited in LAOP No. 619 of 2014 upon proper identification

of the parties as per the Lok Adalat Awards dated 29.03.2016.

14. The High Court dismissed the W.P. No. 21315 of 2017

(second writ petition) preferred by the appellant herein holding

that no error not to speak of any error of law could be said to

have been committed by the Lok Adalat in passing the awards.

The findings recorded by the High Court in its impugned

judgment may be summarized as under:-

i. First, the Court held that the petitioners had not filed any

documents, namely, the title deeds, pattadar passbooks,

revenue records, in support of their claim to the extent of

the land claimed. Whereas, the respondent nos. 5 to 20,

respectively, had filed the aforementioned documents qua

the land claimed and compensation awarded by the Lok

Adalat.

Civil Appeal No. 7838 of 2024 Page 9 of 30

ii. Secondly, addressing the submission that the awards were

not passed with the consent of the parties, the Court noted

that it was as per the representation of the petitioners-

appellants that W.P. No. 13942 of 2013 alongwith other

tagged writ petitions were disposed of by way of a common

order dated 07.04.2016. It held that the awards were

passed pursuant to the consent of the parties, the

coordination meeting, the enjoyment survey and

verification of title deeds.

iii. Thirdly, the Court rejected the submission that the

petitioners-appellants herein did not sign the awards

passed by the Lok Adalat. It held that in the facts and

circumstances of the case, the awards passed were treated

as settlement reached in a class action suit. The

proceedings before the Lok Adalat were treated as those

under Order I Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for

short, “the CPC”).

15. In such circumstances referred to above, the petitioners-

appellants are here before us with the present appeals.

16. By order dated 04.11.2022, this Court directed stay on

apportionment of compensation amount and its

disbursement.

Civil Appeal No. 7838 of 2024 Page 10 of 30

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT S

17. Mr. Gaichangpou Gangmei, the learned counsel appearing for

the appellants would submit any dispute as to title has to be

adjudicated by a civil court under Section 30 of the Act, 1894.

He emphasized that the factum of non-compliance of the

statutory pre-requisites has been recorded in the

communication dated 28.11.2017 addressed by the Principal

District Judge to the Registrar of the High Court. The said

letter categorically states that the awards were passed in the

name of disputed title holders without their presence and

without recording any terms of compromise or settlement

among the claimants inter se to resolve title disputes.

18. Mr. Gangmei further submitted that by adjudicating the

dispute of title between the claimants on the basis of the

enjoyment survey and title documents, the awards passed by

the Lok Adalat violate Regulation 13(6) of the National Legal

Services Authority (Lok Adalat) Regulations, 2009, (for short,

“NALSA Lok Adalat Regulations ”). In the same breath, he

submitted that Regulation 17(2) of the NALSA Lok Adalat

Regulations mandates that an award is valid only when both

the parties affix their signatures.

19. In the aforesaid context, Mr. Gangmei placed reliance on

paragraphs 9 to 12, respectively, of the decision of this Court

in State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh, reported in (2008) 2

SCC 660, to submit that there was no occasion for the

claimants-appellants to present documents and prove their

Civil Appeal No. 7838 of 2024 Page 11 of 30

title before the Lok Adalat, as it does not have the power to

determine title and ownership. He added that the scope of

proceedings before the Lok Adalat is limited, and adjudication

on disputed questions of title is precluded by proviso to

Regulation 13(6).

III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

20. Mr. P. Parmeswaran, the learned counsel appearing for the

respondent no. 4, would submit that the awards passed by

the Lok Adalat ought to be treated as a settlement reached in

a class action suit, as the proceedings are akin to those under

Order I Rule 8 of the CPC. He further submitted that Section

19(5) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short,

“the Act, 1987”) empowers the Lok Adalat to arrive at a

compromise or settlement between the parties.

21. In addition to the aforesaid submission, Mr. Siddhartha

Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.

5, 7, 10 to 12, 14 to 19, respectively, would submit that the

claim of the appellants can be considered independent of the

compensation awarded to the private respondents, as there

are no rival claims as regards the 16 awards passed by the

Lok Adalat.

22. He further submitted that the Lok Adalat awards do not

require any interference, as the aforementioned respondents

demonstrated the proof of ownership of lands through title

Civil Appeal No. 7838 of 2024 Page 12 of 30

deeds and enjoyment survey details, which were tabulated by

the High Court in its impugned judgment.

23. In the last, both the learned counsel submitted that no error,

not to speak of any error of law, could be said to have been

committed by the High Court in passing the impugned

judgment and order.

IV. ANALYSIS

24. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties

and having gone through the materials on record, the only

question that falls for our consideration is whether the High

Court committed any error in passing the impugned judgment

and order.

25. Before adverting to the rival submissions canvassed on either

side, we must briefly capture the dispute before us:-

i. Land acquisition proceedings were initiated by the

State.

ii. Awards were passed by the Land Acquisition Officer

and referred to the jurisdictional civil court for

resolution of title dispute and apportionment of

compensation.

iii. The aforesaid awards were challenged in the first writ

petition before the High Court.

iv. During the pendency of the said petition, the

acquiring body proposed to enhance the

compensation amount and the said matter was

Civil Appeal No. 7838 of 2024 Page 13 of 30

referred to the Legal Services Committee for

settlement of compensation amount. A coordination

meeting was conducted to work out the modalities to

resolve the disputes before the Lok Adalat.

v. In pursuance of the aforesaid, Lok Adalat passed

various awards.

vi. In light of the awards passed in Lok Adalat, the first

writ petition was disposed of.

vii. The Lok Adalat awards were challenged in the second

writ petition before the High Court on apportionment

of the compensation.

viii. A letter by the Principal District Judge communicating

anomaly in dealing with the whole matter was

addressed to the High Court.

ix. While the second writ petition was pending, third writ

petition was filed by other claimants seeking

disbursement of compensation amount settled by the

Lok Adalat.

x. The third writ petition was allowed, directing the

District Judge to disburse the amounts.

xi. The decision of second writ petition resulted in the

impugned judgment before us.

Civil Appeal No. 7838 of 2024 Page 14 of 30

A. Whether the procedure adopted by the High Court

referring the dispute as to apportionment of

compensation between the claimants to the Lok Adalat

through Legal Service Committee was correct in the eyes

of law?

26. While passing the award dated 30.12.2013, the Land

Acquisition Officer referred the dispute as to title and

apportionment of the compensation to the jurisdictional civil

court. Sections 29, 30 and 31 of the Act, 1894, respectively,

stipulate the procedure in such a scenario. The provisions

read thus:-

“29. Particulars of apportionment to be specified. -

When there are several persons interested, if such

persons agree in the apportionment of the

compensation, the particulars of such

apportionment shall be specified in the award, and

as between such persons the award shall be

conclusive evidence of the correctness of the

apportionment.

30. Dispute as to apportionment. - When the

amount of compensation has been settled under

section 11, if any dispute arises as to the

apportionment of the same or any part thereof, or

as to the persons to whom the same or any part

thereof, is payable, the Collector may refer such

dispute to the decision of the Court.

31. Payment of compensation or deposit of same in

Court. - (1) On making an award under section 11,

the Collector shall tender payment of the

compensation awarded by him to the persons

interested entitled thereto according to the award

and shall pay it to them unless prevented by some

one or more of the contingencies mentioned in the

next sub-section.

Civil Appeal No. 7838 of 2024 Page 15 of 30

(2) If they shall not consent to receive it, or if

there be no person competent to alienate the land,

or if there be any dispute as to the title to receive

the compensation or as to the apportionment of it,

the Collector shall deposit the amount of the

compensation in the Court to which a reference

under section 18 would be submitted:[…]”

27. Section 29 of the Act, 1894, allows persons interested to

mutually agree on the apportionment of compensation. The

Collector sets out the agreement in the award and such an

agreement would be treated as final and binding as between

those consenting parties.

28. Section 30 of the Act, 1894, stipulates that when the Land

Acquisition Officer or Collector has made an award under his

hand under Section 11, and a dispute arises either as to the

apportionment of the compensation or any part thereof, or, as

to the persons to whom the compensation or any part thereof

is payable, he may refer such dispute to the principal Civil

Court of original jurisdiction. The provision even empowers

the Collector to, on his own, refer the matter to the Court.

29. Section 31 of the Act, 1894, must be read in conjunction with

Section 30, as the two provisions operate in continuum.

Section 31 obliges the Collector, pursuant to making an award

under Section 11, to tender payment of the compensation to

the persons entitled thereto unless he is impeded by any of

the contingencies contemplated under the provision i.e.,

where there is no consent to receive the compensation, or

where there is no person competent to alienate the land, or

Civil Appeal No. 7838 of 2024 Page 16 of 30

where there is a dispute as to the title to receive the

compensation, or as to its apportionment. In such

circumstances, the Collector is obligated to deposit the

amount of compensation in the court.

30. Once the compensation is deposited in court, the function of

the Collector, insofar as apportionment is concerned, comes

to an end. What survives is a dispute between the interested

persons as to the extent of their respective interests in the

compensation. The term “any dispute” in Section 30

encompasses controversy as to title whether arising between

the claimants present, or appearing from a discrepancy or

uncertainty in the documents provided by the Government.

31. Thus, it is limpid that the very act of making a reference under

Section 30 is an acknowledgment by the Collector of a prima

facie dispute as to title, more particularly, as to the

apportionment of compensation in this context. A reference

under Section 30 is made when the Collector applies his mind

that a contest exists as to entitlement over the compensation,

which he is not equipped or rather not empowered to resolve.

32. In this context, we may refer to the decision in G.H. Grant

(Dr) v. State of Bihar, reported in 1965 SCC OnLine SC 51 ,

wherein this Court observed that the Act, 1894, does not

confer authority with the power on the Collector to decide the

conflicting rights of the person interested in the amount of the

compensation. Such a dispute would be resolved by a civil

Civil Appeal No. 7838 of 2024 Page 17 of 30

court through a reference under Section 18 or Section 30 or

in a separate suit. The relevant observations read thus:-

“12. […] The Collector is by Section 11 authorised

to make an award setting out the true area of the

land, the compensation which, in his opinion,

should be allowed for the land and the

apportionment of the said compensation among all

the persons known or believed to be interested in

the land, or of whose claims, he has information,

whether or not they have respectively appeared

before him. The award when filed in the Collector's

office becomes final and conclusive evidence as

between the Collector and the persons interested

whether they have respectively appeared before

the Collector of not, of the true area and value of

the land and the apportionment of compensation

among the persons interested. The land vests

absolutely in the Government, free from all

encumbrances when possession is taken by the

Collector under Section 16. […] By Section 18 the

Collector is enjoined to refer to the District Court for

determination, objections as to the measurement of

the land, the amount of compensation, the persons

to whom it is payable, or the apportionment thereof

among the persons interested. Part IV deals with

apportionment of compensation. If the persons

interested agree in the apportionment of the

compensation, the particulars of such

apportionment shall be specified in the award

(Section 29) : if there be no such agreement, the

Collector may, if a dispute arises as to the

apportionment, of the compensation or any part

thereof or as to the persons to whom the same or

any part thereof is payable, refer such dispute

under Section 30 for decision by the Court. […].

13. There are two provisions Sections 18(1) and 30

which invest the Collector with power to refer to the

Court a dispute as to apportionment of

compensation or as to the persons to whom it is

payable. By sub-section (1) of Section 18 the

Civil Appeal No. 7838 of 2024 Page 18 of 30

Collector is enjoined to refer a dispute as to

apportionment, or as to title to receive

compensation, on the application within the time

prescribed by sub-section (2) of that section of a

person interested who has not accepted the award.

Section 30 authorises the Collector to refer to the

Court after compensation is settled under Section

11, any dispute arising as to apportionment of the

same or any part thereof or as to the persons to

whom the same or any part thereof is payable. […]

xxx

18. The scheme of the Land Acquisition Act is that

all disputes about the quantum of compensation

must be decided by resort to the procedure

prescribed by the Act : it is also intended that

disputes about the rights of owners to

compensation being ancillary to the principal

dispute should be decided by the Court to which

power is entrusted. Jurisdiction of the Court in this

behalf is not restricted to cases of apportionment,

but extends to adjudication of disputes as to the

persons who are entitled to receive compensation,

and there is nothing in Section 30 which excludes

a reference to the Court of a depute raised by a

person on whom the title of the owner of land has,

since the award, devolved.

19. […] The Collector is not authorised to decide

finally the conflicting rights of the persons

interested in the amount of compensation : he is

primarily concerned with the acquisition of the

land. In determining the amount of compensation

which may be offered, he has, it is true, to

apportion the amount of compensation between the

persons known or believed to be interested in the

land, of whom, or of whose claims, he has

information, whether or not they have appeared

before him. But the scheme of apportionment by the

Collector does not finally determine the rights of the

persons interested to the amount of compensation

: the award is only conclusive between the

Collector and the persons interested and not

Civil Appeal No. 7838 of 2024 Page 19 of 30

among the persons interested. The Collector has no

power to finally adjudicate upon the title to

compensation : that dispute has to be decided

either in a reference under Section 18 or under

Section 30 or in a separate suit. Payment of

compensation therefore under Section 31 to the

person declared by the award to be entitled thereto

discharges the State or its liability to pay

compensation (Subject to any modification by the

Court), leaving it open to the claimant to

compensation to agitate his right in a reference

under Section 30 or by a separate suit.”

(Emphasis supplied)

33. What is discernable from the statutory scheme is that there

are only two modes by which apportionment of compensation

among persons interested may be resolved. First, under

Section 29 where the persons interested are able to arrive at

an agreement among themselves as to apportionment, the

award is made in terms of such an agreement. Secondly,

where no such agreement is present, the remedy lies by way

of reference under Section 30 where the dispute is adjudicated

by the reference court.

34. There is no gainsaying that agreement under Section 29

necessarily requires the concurrence of all persons interested

in the apportionment. In other words, a partial or truncated

consensus, wherein some claimants are involved, cannot take

effect as an “agreement” within the meaning of Section 29. We

say so because those who are excluded from the agreement

still remain in dispute.

Civil Appeal No. 7838 of 2024 Page 20 of 30

35. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the Land

Acquisition Officer, upon finding a dispute as to the

apportionment of compensation and as to the persons to

whom it was payable, deposited the compensation in the

Court, and the matter came to be referred under Sections 30

and 31, respectively, as LAOP No. 619 of 2014. The approach

of the Land Acquisition Officer of referring the dispute to the

civil court was correct. As the dispute emerged from a claim

over the land acquired, the matter would eventually boil down

to apportionment of compensatio n on such basis. This

reference was an acknowledgment that no agreement under

Section 29 existed among the claimants, and that the dispute

required resolution through adjudication before the Court.

36. During the pendency of the first writ petition, the High Court

referred the matter for settlement before the Lok Adalat, for

which the Coordination Meeting dated 30.05.2015 was

conducted. Till here things were fine. The said meeting

recorded that the representatives of the claimants and the

respondent no. 4 had come to an agreement that an

enjoyment survey was to be conducted with reference to

individual extent based on title deeds. We shall discuss the

purpose of enjoyment survey in more detail in the latter part

of this judgment.

37. We are of the considered opinion that what transpired after

such survey was conducted did not conform to the procedure

permissible in the eyes of law. The Principal District Judge,

Civil Appeal No. 7838 of 2024 Page 21 of 30

Khammam, acknowledged in his letter dated 28.11.2017 that

awards passed by the Lok Adalat did not record any terms of

compromise or settlement among the disputed claimants, and

were passed, “as if the dispute was between the Land

Acquisition Officer and individual interest holder”, rather than

between the claimants. The letter categorically records that all

the disputed title holders were neither made parties to the

settlement, nor were they signatories to the awards.

38. If at all the Lok Adalat awards were intended to reflect an

agreement under Section 29, or a standalone agreement, it

could be said to be valid only if concurred by all persons

interested in the apportionment, as the particulars of

apportionment as mentioned in the award drawn by the

Collector is conclusive between the persons who have

expressed their agreement in the apportionment. [ See:

Sharda Devi v. State of Bihar, (2003) 3 SCC 128]

39. It was also not the case where the exclusion of claimants was

inadvertent. If at all the High Court was of the view that the

dispute could be resolved through settlement inter se parties,

the High Court should have remained vigilant of the grievance

of the appellants. The challenge to awards passed by the Lok

Adalat in the second writ petition was on the ground that the

appellants-claimants did not consent to the settlement drawn

by the Lok Adalat. Further, although the challenge to the said

awards was pending, yet the High Court, in the third writ

petition, directed disbursement of compensation.

Civil Appeal No. 7838 of 2024 Page 22 of 30

40. The members present in the Coordination Meeting dated

30.05.2015 thought it fit to resolve the dispute as regards the

payment of compensation through enjoyment survey – a

survey intended to record the state of physical occupation of

the acquired land. There was no legal basis brought to the

notice of this Court, either by the authorities conducting or

the respondents herein that would authorize the State to

resort to an enjoyment survey as the basis for determining

entitlement to compensation.

41. An enjoyment survey captures nothing more than the fact of

physical occupation on the land at the time it is conducted. It

does not purport to examine the legal title, right, or interest

by virtue of which such occupation is held. In such

circumstances, the findings of such survey cannot be treated

as conclusive of entitlement to compensation.

42. In the aforesaid context, we may refer to the decision in

Gudala Pentamma v. State of Telangana, reported in 2026

SCC OnLine TS 6654 , wherein the petitioner upon issuance

of new e-pattadar passbooks found that her land was omitted

from her holdings. Later, she found that land acquisition

proceedings were initiated against the said land. The

petitioner sought correction of revenue records and payment

of compensation. She was aggrieved as her claim was not

referred to the competent authority under the relevant Act.

With the following observations, the High Court of Telangana

Civil Appeal No. 7838 of 2024 Page 23 of 30

directed the competent authority to make a reference under

the pari materia provision. The relevant observations read

thus:-

“16. The petitioner has raised a valid grievance

that mere physical possession per se cannot

determine entitlement to compensation under the

Act, 2013 more particularly in the case of assigned

lands, and that the authorities were duty-bound to

examine whether the persons found in possession

were in lawful possession as assignees, or merely

as trespassers, encroachers, or persons in

permissive possession. This Court finds merit in

this submission, insofar as it is a settled legal

position that an enjoyment survey conducted

during land acquisition proceedings is intended to

capture the state of physical occupation on the

ground, and it cannot by itself determine the legal

title or entitlement to compensation. The

respondent authorities were obliged to look beyond

mere physical occupation and to ascertain whether

the persons listed in Form-F were holding lawful

rights, whether as original assignees, as legal

heirs through succession, or as holders under

validly executed and legally permissible

documents of title.”

(Emphasis supplied)

43. In Kottamula Mallaiah v. The State of Telangana, W.P.

No. 2118/2023, the compensation was paid to the persons

who were in possession as per the enjoyment survey

conducted by Tahsildar. The Court emphasized that it is for

the Land Acquisition Officer to look into any rival claims for

payment of compensation and make a reference under the

relevant provisions of the Act. The Court declined to recognize

the practice of “enjoyment survey” and directed the

Civil Appeal No. 7838 of 2024 Page 24 of 30

respondents therein to pay compensation to the petitioners in

accordance with law. The relevant observations read thus:-

“4. From the above, it is evident that the father of

the petitioners herein was admittedly assigned an

extent of Ac. 1.20 gts. situated in Sy.No.S12/ 149

of Eliminedu Village and the same was succeeded

by the petitioners herein. The same was also

recorded as such in the Revenue records. But,

when the said extent of land was sought to be

acquired, the respondents, instead of following the

provisions of law as contained in the Act, 2013,

appears to have adopted a strange procedure of

resorting to conducting of an enjoyment survey on

the alleged ground of certain objections raised by

the persons in possession of the subject land. The

concept of conducting an enjoyment survey for the

purpose of acquiring the lands under the provisions

of the Act, 2013, does not find place in the said Act.

But, for the reasons best known, the respondents

have adopted such an innovative procedure by

empowering the Tahsildar or the Mandal Surveyor

concerned to ascertain as to the physical

possession and enjoyment of the land under

acquisition and to pay the compensation basing

upon such enjoyment survey.

5. Though, this Court specifically asked Sri

Harender Pershad, learned Special Government

Pleader, to clarify the basis on which the said

enjoyment survey was conducted and

compensation was paid, no such legal basis is

brought to the notice of this Court that would

authorize the respondents to conduct such

enjoyment survey for the purpose of payment of

compensation for the lands under acquisition. In

case, if there is any rival claim for payment of

compensation or any objections were raised

against the contents of the preliminary notification

or the declaration made under Section 19 of the

Act, 2013, or at the stage of an Award enquiry at

the instance of so-called enjoyers, it is for the Land

Civil Appeal No. 7838 of 2024 Page 25 of 30

Acquisition Officer concerned to look into such

objections and in case, if there is any substance in

such objection, the Land Acquisition Officer is

supposed to proceed further to pass an Award and

make a reference under Sections 76 and 77 of the

Act, 2013, for adjudication of the rival claims for

payment of compensation by the Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority (for

short 'LAR & R Authority). But, in the instant case,

respondent No.3 had adopted a strange and

innovative procedure without there being any legal

basis and deprived the petitioners of the

compensation for which they are otherwise entitled

to. […] As the payment of compensation on the

ground of enjoyment survey is totally unknown to

law and that is the only ground on which the

petitioners are deprived of compensation for the

said extent of land, this Court is of the considered

view that the petitioners are entitled for the relief

sought for in the Writ Petition.”

(Emphasis supplied)

44. It must be kept in mind that when the Government acquires

property, public funds are disbursed as compensation. It

must be paid to the person entitled and determined as per

law, and not merely to any claimant who cares to appear at

the first instance, or who is the most vocal or visible before

the authorities. It is needless to mention that physical

possession may be held under any number of capacities, and

such a survey is incapable of distinguishing between these.

We cannot permit it to determine as to who is entitled to

receive compensation.

Civil Appeal No. 7838 of 2024 Page 26 of 30

45. In such circumstances referred to above, we are of the

considered view that the High Court in its impugned judgment

erred in upholding the awards passed by the Lok Adalat. The

awards do not reflect a genuine agreement under Section 29

of the Act, 1894, since all disputing claimants were not parties

or signatories thereto.

46. One another good reason to hold the aforesaid is that after an

award is passed by the Collector and the dispute between the

claimants is the focus in a reference under Section 30 of the

Act, 1894, the acquiring body leaves the pitch, and the match

thereafter is between the rival claimants/persons interested.

B. Whether Order I Rule 8 of the CPC, or principles thereof

could be said to be made applicable in proceedings before

the Lok Adalat?

47. It is contended by the respondents that the awards passed by

the Lok Adalat ought to be treated as a settlement reached in

a class action suit, as the proceedings are akin to those under

Order I Rule 8 of the CPC. We are not impressed by such a

submission as the awards are not between the parties who

were in dispute for which the reference was made. The awards

deal with only one part of the overall dispute i.e., amount of

compensation to be paid by the acquiring body/respondent

no. 4.

48. The necessary condition for Order I Rule 8 to be applicable or

the principles emanating therefrom is that the persons on

whose behalf the suit or proceeding is being brought must

Civil Appeal No. 7838 of 2024 Page 27 of 30

have the same interest i.e., either their interest must be

common, or they must have a common grievance which they

collectively seek to have redressed. The foundation of a

representative proceeding is for the benefit of all the persons

so interested.

49. Having regard to the aforesaid, the High Court in its impugned

judgment erred by characterizing the awards passed by the

Lok Adalat as akin to a settlement in a class action suit under

Order I Rule 8 of the CPC. This characterization does not cure

the infirmity but rather compounds it. A representative suit

under Order I Rule 8 presupposes a community of interest

among the persons represented, as the interest of those who

are being represented is adequately protected by those who

are representing them. It would be wholly inappropriate to a

proceeding where the subject matter of the dispute is the bone

of contention between the claimants themselves and they are

not the “two parties” arriving at a settlement. We say so

because in such a case, there exists no common interest

capable of representation. There is no doubt that to treat such

rival claims as a single class is to elide the very dispute that

the reference under Section 30 of the Act, 1894, was intended

to resolve.

50. The High Court’s reliance on Order I Rule 8 of the CPC to

uphold the awards was erroneous as it mischaracterises a

dispute of rival and adverse title to compensation as one

involving a representative common interest. The claimants in

Civil Appeal No. 7838 of 2024 Page 28 of 30

the present case did not share a common adversary in the

respondent no. 4, rather there was a conflict amongst them

over entitlement of compensation.

51. At this stage, we may refer to and rely upon one order of this

Court in Vasant Nanaji Patre v. Vidarbha Irrigation

Development Corporation & Ors. , Civil Appeal No.

5305/2025. The appellant being dissatisfied by the award

passed by the Collector filed a reference under Section 18 of

the Act, 1894. The Reference Court passed an award

enhancing the compensation . However, the respondents

therein being aggrieved by the enhancement approached the

High Court. The High Court reduced the compensation relying

upon the award passed by the Lok Adalat in respect of other

landowners. This Court set aside the judgment of the High

Court to the extent it reduced the compensation with the

following observations:-

“7. In our considered opinion, the award passed by

the Lok Adalat will be binding only on the parties,

who entered into a settlement accepted by both

sides. However, as the appellant did not agree to

such a settlement and opted to pursue his legal

remedy for enhancement of compensation in

accordance with the provisions of the erstwhile

Land Acquisition Act, 1894, he cannot be bound

down with the compensation amount as agreed to

by the other land owners. That being so, the award

of the Lok Adalat could not be an exemplar to be

followed by the High Court for the purpose of

reducing the compensation awarded to the

appellant. Faced with this, learned Senior Counsel

for the respondents refers to the Sale Deed dated

25.03.1994 (Exhibit 22), which find mention in

Civil Appeal No. 7838 of 2024 Page 29 of 30

paras 15 and 16 of the impugned judgment of the

High Court. As regard to the said exemplar, it may

be seen that Section 4 Notification for acquiring the

subject land was issued in the year 2000 whereas

the aforementioned sale instance pertains to the

year 1994. In that case, the High Court ought to

have applied the annual escalation of not less than

10 to 12 per cent per annum, and then determine

the market value of the acquired land. No such

exercise has been undertaken in the instant case.

It is also not clear from the facts on record as to

whether the Sale Deed dated 25.03.1994 (Exhibit

22) is a part of the acquired area and/or abutting

thereto.”

(Emphasis supplied)

52. In the case at hand, the awards passed by the Lok Adalat do

not withstand the test of law for the following reasons. First,

it is not a settlement between claimants, the persons whose

competing claims were referred under Section 30 of the Act,

1894. Secondly, Regulation 17(2) of the NALSA Lok Adalat

Regulations mandates that an award must bear signatures of

the parties between whom the settlement has been arrived at.

There is nothing on record to indicate that both the parties in

dispute on the payment of compensation agreed to the

settlement arrived at by the Lok Adalat. In such

circumstances, the awards could not be considered binding

on those who were non-signatories to the awards.

V. CONCLUSION

53. In the overall view of the matter, we have reached the

conclusion that we should set aside the impugned judgment

and order passed by the High Court and remit the matter to

the Court of Principal District Judge, Khammam, for de novo

Civil Appeal No. 7838 of 2024 Page 30 of 30

hearing of reference as expeditiously as possible, not later

than six months from the date of the pronouncement of this

judgment, by duly putting all the parties concerned to notice

in accordance with law. The Court must decide the

apportionment reference uninfluenced by any observations.

We accordingly pass such order.

54. The appeal stands allowed in the above terms.

55. Registry shall forward one copy each of this judgment to all

the High Courts.

…………………………..J.

(J.B. PARDIWALA)

.…………………………..J.

(MANOJ MISRA )

August 19, 2026;

New Delhi.