THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA C.R.P.Nos.5769 and 1582 of 2008 ORAL COMMON ORDER: Heard both sides. 2. C.R.P.No.5769 of 2008 is directed against the order, dated 11.04.2008, passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, allowing the petition E.P.No.99 of 2006 in O.S.No.232 of 1998, directing the petitioner therein/judgment debtor to receive an amount of Rs.4,89,757/-, deposited by the respondent therein/decree holder in the Court below, as per the order, dated 12.12.2006, passed in I.A.No.859 of 2006 in O.S.No.893 of 2006, and regularize the building of the respondent therein/decree holder, which is EP schedule property, in accordance with the terms and conditions of Lok Adalat award, dated 16.09.1998, in O.S.No.232 of 1998, within three months from the date of the said order. 3. C.R.P.No.1582 of 2008 is directed against the order, dated 10.08.2007, passed by the V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, dismissing the appeal C.M.A.No.5 of 2007, confirming the order, dated 12.12.2006, passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, in I.A.No.859 of 2006 in O.S.No.893 of 2006. 4. The petitioner herein-Vijayawada Municipal Corporation is the petitioner, the respondent is the respondent in E.P.No.99 of 2006 in O.S.No.232 o 1998, before the trial Court, and appellant and respondent in C.M.A.No.5 of 2007 before the lower appellate Court. 5. For the sake of convenience, in this common order, the petitioner and the respondent will be referred to as “the Corporation” and “the decree-holder”, respectively. 6. The factual background, in brief, appears to be that the decree-holder had raised a construction with certain deviations. When the Corporation raised an objection and issued proceedings to demolish the alleged illegal floors/constructions, the present suit i.e., O.S.No.232 of 1998 came to be filed, seeking permanent injunction against the Corporation. 7. During the trial of the said suit, the matter had been referred to Lok Adalat for settlement of the matter amicably. 8. As a result of the conciliatory efforts, taken up by the District Legal Services Authority, Vijayawada, both the parties have arrived at a settlement, which is not in dispute, and the same is extracted for ready reference, which is as under: “The parties have agreed for settlement before Lok Adalat as per G.O.No.419 (MA) dated 30.07.1998 as noted hereunder 1. The Corporation agreed to consider the case of the plaintiff for regularization of existing structures, taking into consideration of the application pending with them and also compounding fee already paid. 2. The Corporation also agreed to regularize the water tank and lift room in the fifth floor, subject to payment of agreed compounding fees and penalty by the plaintiff on or before 30.9.98. 3. The plaintiff shall not make any further construction, under the guise of settlement entered before Lok Adalat. 4. Both the parties have agreed to bare their own costs. 5. The advocates are entitled for their fees as per the advocate fees Rules. 175/CHEK/1 Read by Exam by SIGNATURE OF THE PLAINTIFF SIGNATURE OF THE DEFENDANT SIGNATURE OF THE PLAINTIFF’S SIGNATURE OF THE COUNSEL FOR COUNSEL DEFENDANT “ 9. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation submits; firstly, the direction issued by the trial Court in the impugned order, dated 11.04.2008, in E.P.No.99 of 2006 in O.S.No.232 of 1998, is contrary to law; secondly, the terms and conditions of the settlement arrived at before the Lok Adalat are not complied with within the time prescribed in the said settlement i.e., on or before 30.09.1998; thirdly, though the settlement was arrived at, as per the terms and conditions of G.O.Ms.No.419 (MA), dated 30.07.1998, subsequently the said G.O., was struck down by this Court, and therefore, the said G.O., is not in force; fourthly, the decree-holder has to pay the compounding fee only in terms of G.O.Ms.No.419, and therefore, such objection raised by the decree holder cannot be countenanced for a simple reason that the settlement arrived at before the Lok Adalat was to regularize in terms of G.O.Ms.No.419 (MA) dated 30.07.1998; and fifthly, the Court below has no jurisdiction to extend the time mentioned in the award passed by the Lok Adalat. Of course, certain other grounds were also raised in these revision petitions, but not much of thrust is laid on them, and that, by and large, the above are the main and substantial grounds urged before this Court. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the decree-older submits that the decree-holder has already deposited the amount in terms of G.O.Ms.No.419 (MA), dated 30.07.1998; that the delay was only because of non-consideration and communication by the Corporation and that, however, as per the terms and conditions of the said G.O., the compounding fee was calculated and was deposited to the credit of suit O.S.No.893 of 2006. 11. In the light of the said submissions, it is to be seen that the matter had been settled amicably with the intervention of the Lok Adalat and the parties had entered into an agreement as per the terms and conditions extracted above. The first condition is to the effect that the Corporation had agreed to consider the case of the decree-holder for regularization, taking into consideration the application pending with them and also the compounding fee already paid. 12. In this context, it appears that some amounts, in two spells @ Rs.10,000/- each, were paid. The details of which are not relevant. 13. The said condition indicates that it is incumbent upon the Corporation to inform the decree-holder about the quantum of compounding fee. But, as could be seen from the records, made available before this Court, no proceedings appear to have been issued by the Corporation demanding the decree-holder to deposit the said amount as compounding fee in terms of G.O.Ms.No.419 (MA), dated 30.07.1998. In other words, unless and until the compounding fee is quantified, the decree-holder is not under an obligation to deposit the amount. If there is any violation on the part of the decree-holder, in spite of the intimation about the quantum of the compounding fee, then, perhaps, the Corporation may be held to be having a valid reason not to consider the application of the decree-holder. 14. But, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the Corporation has informed as born out from the record that, for the first time, through proceedings, dated 27.03.2001, the decree- holder had been informed to pay the compounding fee. In fact, it is a notice to demolish the construction and incidentally there was a mention about the payment of the compounding fee. 15. No other intimation like the present one has been brought to the notice of this Court, meaning thereby, that no intimation about the quantum of compounding fee, earlier was made by the Corporation. In such an event, it is too much for the Corporation to contend that there was a violation on the part of the decree-holder in complying with the conditions of the agreement arrived at before the Lok Adalat. Surprisingly, there is no intimation rejecting the application of the decree-holder for regularization, which was pending with them. 16. Yet another intriguing factor is that another letter, dated nil, was addressed by the Corporation to the decree-holder directing her to deposit the compounding fee in terms of G.O.Ms.No.419, on or before 15.07.2003. 17. The said two letters, one dated 27.03.2001, and the other, dated nil, respectively, indicate the factors that the Corporation was always keen to keep the matter of regularization pending at the threat of demolition from time to time. Added to this, earlier also, on several occasions, notices were being issued to demolish. These two standards are apparently incompatible. 18. Regarding the contention that compounding fee was not deposited on or before 30.09.1998, again it is to be noticed that no intimation was ever given to the decree holder. Nextly, the stipulation of time i.e., 30.09.1998 is only pertaining to regularization of water tank and lift room but not for regularization of other parts of construction, which were allegedly raised illegally. This is abundantly clear from a bare reading of Clause 2 of the terms and conditions of the settlement before Lok Adalat. 19. Therefore, the contention of the Corporation that there is gross violation on the part of the decree-holder in complying with the conditions of the award of the Lok Adalat cannot be countenanced. Further, no notice has ever been given by the Corporation to the decree-holder that because of violation or non- compliance with the terms and conditions of the award, the Corporation is not at an obligation to consider the case of the decree-holder for regularization. 20. In this connection, it is to be further remembered that the award of the Lok Adalat is a deemed decree, as contemplated under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, and therefore, it can be executed within the prescribed period as per the provisions of law notwithstanding the subsequent changes in the legal position and also by virtue of the status of the award being final and un-appealable. In other words, even if there is any change in the legal position, at a later point of time, the status of the decree attached to the award of the Lok Adalat cannot be altered or modified or nullified. 21. In such circumstances, the power of the Civil Court extending time for implementation of the award, as has been contended by the learned Standing counsel appearing for the Corporation, does not arise. That line of argument would be available only under different circumstances but not in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. 22. In the elaborate and well reasoned order, dated 11.04.2008, in E.P.No.99 of 2006 in O.S.No.232 of 1998, passed by the trial Court, which is being impugned in C.R.P.No.5769 of 2008, it has been recorded as under: “As seen from the record and as per the admitted facts the Dhr., deposited Rs.4,89,757/- as per order of this Court in I.A.No.859/06, dt.12.12.06. DW1 who is examined on behalf of Municipal Corporation in O.S.No.893/06 categorically admitted in the cross examination that Corporation has no objection to regularize the plaint schedule building by receiving amount deposited by the plaintiff into Court subject to the finalisation of Commissioner. So, as per the admission of the witness i.e., DW1 in O.S.No.836/06 the Municipal Corporation has no objection to receive the amount of Rs.4,89,757/- deposited by the plaintiff into this court and regularize the building of the plaintiff.” 23. There may be various other facts and circumstances, which relate to various suits or other proceedings in the shape of writ petition that might have been filed by the decree-holder. All those proceedings appear to have been initiated at the threat of demolition and all those suits are only for injunction. 24. What is to be noticed is all those proceedings were initiated only pending disposal of the execution of the award passed by the Lok Adalat. If the award of the Lok Adalat has been given due respect to its letter and spirit and to its object, the question of filing the litigation would not have arisen. 25. As already noticed, in the application I.A.No.859/2006 in O.S.No.893/2006, the authorities have agreed to receive the amount as compounding fee, as has been deposited by the decree-holder. 26. What is further interesting is even today also what exactly is the compounding fee is not known. 27. As could be seen from the record, for the first time in the letter, dated 27.03.2001, and second time by another letter, dated nil, the amount has been indicated. Perhaps that is the amount determined by the decree-holder towards compounding fee, may be with or without any variation in compounding the fee. 28. As already pointed out, addressing the letters on two different occasions itself is indicative of the factor that the Corporation has not been very particular about the nullification of the award, passed by the Lok Adalat, on the ground that the decree-holder had violated the terms and conditions of the award. 29. At any cost, as already pointed out, the first duty cast upon the Corporation is to intimate the quantum of compounding fee, as contemplated in condition Nos.1 and 2, to the decree- holder, for the purpose of compliance of the award, passed by the Lok Adalat. At the threshold, there is a violation. The subsequent failures, if any, cannot be attributed to the decree-holder in view of the admission made by the Corporation in O.S.No.893 of 2006, while dealing with I.A.No.859 of 2006, that the amount deposited would be received, however, subject to the finalisation, indicating the exact amount of compounding fee. 30. Before parting with the case, I am of the considered view that the avowed objects of the Lok Adalats are to see the litigations and chronic litigations resolved amicably out of the Court in order to implement the scheme of alternative dispute resolution mechanism and in that pursuit the present suit came to have been disposed of by the Lok Adalat with its intervention, subject to certain conditions. 31. Therefore, I am of the further view that the conditions of the settlement shall be understood with pragmatic approach and both the parties shall be keen in resolving the matter without creating any further complications. Unfortunately, despite the award passed by the Lok Adalat, lot of litigation had been generated. I am not attributing this unfortunate litigation to either of the party. But, however, the same should be shared by both the parties. 32. At least, now, this Court would only wish that the problem should be resolved with open mind and with pragmatic approach, but not with any further hostilities, which would defeat the very purpose of intervention of the Lok Adalat and award passed by it. 33. Lastly, I cannot ignore the fact that the E.P was filed under Order 21 Rule 32 C.P.C. If that provision is to be strictly complied with, the E.P is to be allowed and consequently if the E.P is to be allowed the appropriate orders would have been that the authorities of the Corporation would be sent to civil prison. But, I am of the view that the trial Court, rightly, with all wisdom and all responsibility, had passed the impugned order in respect of extending the relief to the decree-holder as sought for. 34. It is settled law that the relief sought for can always be modified, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. The trial Court had rightly passed the award in stead of passing the order in the E.P., with the relief as sought for, and thereby balancing the prevailing hostile situation and tried its best to bring the situation to normal. I only record my appreciation for the Lok Adalat as well as the trial Court in passing the impugned order, dated 11.04.2008, E.P.No.99 of 2006 in O.S.No.232 of 1998, and I only wish and hope that there would not be any further litigation in this regard. 35. It is further made clear that if there is any further deviation made by the decree-holder in future, it is always open for the Corporation to proceed in accordance with law. 36. For the reasons affirmed above, both the Civil Revision Petitions, filed by the Corporation, deserve to be dismissed and accordingly they are dismissed, however, with no costs. ____________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Date: 26.03.2010 va