1 wp2356.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2356 OF 2010 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2357 OF 2010 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2358 OF 2010 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2359 OF 2010 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2360 OF 2010 ..... Mr. U.K. Patil, Advocate for petitioner in all matters. Mrs. V.A. Shinde, A.G.P. for respondents nos.1 and 2 in all matters. Mr. M.D. Narwadkar, Advocate for Respondent no.3 in WP no. 2359 of 2010. Mr. H.A. Patankar, advocate for respondent no.3 in WP 2356 of 2010 and holding for Mr. A.A. Joshi, Advocate for respondent no.3 in WP nos. 2358, 2357 and 2360 of 2010. ..... (CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) DATED : 15th February, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard Advocates Mr. U.K. Patil for petitioner, Mr. M.D. Narwadkar for respondent no.3 in Writ Petition No. 2359 of 2010, Mr. H.A. Patankar for respondent no.3 in Writ Petition No. 2356 of 2010 and holding for Mr. A.A. Joshi for respondent no.3 in Writ Petition Nos. 2358, 2357 and 2360 of 2010 and learned A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2 in all matters. 2. Advocate Mr. Patil for petitioner has pointed out that contrary to express mandate of Section 20(4) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, the award here in land acquisition matters is passed by panel which consisted of an Advocate for land owners. 2 wp2356.10 He states that before placing these matters before the said panel, the fact ought to have been noticed and the matter should have been transferred to some other panel. He also points out that it was boundant duty of the said panel member (Advocate) to point out his interest in the matter to other panel members or Judge then the concerned Judge who accepted the compromise and passed the final award should have notice that the said Advocate has signed not only as panel member but also as an Advocate for claimants. According to him, there are serious lapses at every stage. Lastly he contends that in the process, the amounts not legally payable were agreed to be paid and have been distributed also as the fact came to notice of the petitioner-Municipal Corporation belatedly. He points out that alleged representative who has signed on behalf of the petitioner Corporation on document of compromise was not legally authorised to represent the Corporation and in any case, his signature has been taken five days after holding of Lok Adalat. All others have placed their signatures on 17.12.2006 while the said representative has signed on 22.12.2006. According to him therefore this compromise and award is not binding upon the petitioner Corporation. He also adds that few more similar matters have been filed by Corporation before this Court. 3. Learned A.G.P. points out that the meeting of Lok Adalat and listing of matters was already communicated to the petitioner and it was for the petitioner to take care of its interest. 4. Advocate Mr. Narwadkar for respondent no.3 points out that amount is already distributed to claimants as per the impugned award. He further states that the claimants can not be blamed for 3 wp2356.10 all this because 15% increase on uniform basis was agreed by all acquiring bodies and uniformly that has been applied in all matters. He contends that because of this agreement and its uniform application, the participation as panel member by an Advocate for land owners has not any way affected passing of award or the process of reaching compromise. 5. Grant of 15% uniform hike to all claimants in matters placed before the concerned panel of Lok Adalat on 17.12.2006 is not in dispute. However that by itself does not mean that the petitioner was duty bound to accept it. Putting of signature by allegedly representative much later shows that the petitioner was not party to any such decision of giving 15% hike at least on 17.12.2006. 6. The hike has been on uniform basis and hence, the participation in the said panel by Advocate of land owners may not by itself sufficient to vitiate either compromise or award. However, Section 20(4) of the above referred 1987 Act requires proceedings of Lok Adalat also to be free, fair and hence unbiased. Any participation by an interested Advocate as panel member therefor needs to be avoided. Here concerned Advocate therefore was duty bound to disclose his interest to other panel members before compromise was recorded. If his participation in the panel was necessary for any reason, he ought to have made endorsement accordingly on the compromise. He has signed not only as panel member but also as Advocate for claimants on that compromise. This could have been avoided and can not be encouraged. The administration at District level or State level should take appropriate precautions and issue necessary guidelines to panel members in this respect. 4 wp2356.10 7. The representative of petitioner has signed the compromise pursis on 22.12.2006. He has not refused to sign it on that day. Thus after he placed his sign, the petitioners can not turn around and contend that the said compromise is not binding upon them. The petitioner could have taken appropriate action against the said representatives and there is nothing on record to show to this Court that any such action has taken against him. 8. In the above situation, when the amount is already distributed about four years back to the claimants, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter as I do not find anything against the claimants as such. However, with direction to take appropriate precautions to avoid such situation and challenges in future, the present Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp2356.10