Legal Correspondent:
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.