THE Supreme Court has set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s orders that had refused to entertain a writpetition challenging a Lok Adalatdecree 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. The SC judgment came in the matter of Dilip Mehta versus Rakesh Gupta and Others.   

 

The appellants were represented through Senior Advocates Siddharth Bhatnagar and Advocate Siddharth R Gupta, whereas the respondent was repre sented through Ravindra Shrivastava, Senior Advocate. A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta held that the High Court erred in declin ing to examine the petition er’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 pre vent dispossession cannot be treated as an ‘alternative remedy’.

 

The appellant, a bonafide 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 exe cuting Court in execution proceedings where already objections have been filed to the validity of the decree.

 

The Supreme Court reaf firmed that the only legally recognised 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 withdraw execution-objections within four weeks and ordered that he shall not be dispossessed from the property until the High Court decides the matter a fresh on merits.