Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Lok Adalat awards in property disputes: Cheriyath Jyothi vs. Sainudeen (24 April 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 24 April 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 400
Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J., Ajay Rastogi, J.
Can a Lok Adalat award that mandates the demolition of an existing structure be interpreted as a permanent ban on any future construction on the same plot? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent property dispute case. The core issue revolved around whether a Lok Adalat award, which directed the demolition of an unauthorized structure, also prohibited the construction of a new structure on the same land after obtaining necessary permissions. The bench comprised Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and Ajay Rastogi, with the judgment authored by Justice Khanwilkar.

Case Background

The case originated from a complaint by Cheriyath Jyothi (the appellant) to the Karakulam Grama Panchayath on May 6, 2013. Jyothi alleged that Sainudeen (the respondent) had constructed an unauthorized building and was operating a rubber sheet manufacturing plant on a commercial basis in the adjacent plot. Jyothi claimed this violated the Kerala Panchayath Building Rules, 2011, and posed a health hazard.

Jyothi’s representation was placed before the Lok Adalat, which passed an award on August 23, 2013. The award stated that the respondent agreed to demolish the existing building within three months. Failing this, the petitioner could approach the appropriate authority for execution of the award.

Subsequently, the appellant approached the Court of Principal Munsif, Nedumangad, for the execution of the Lok Adalat award. The Executing Court directed the removal of the structure. The respondent challenged this order in the High Court, arguing that he had demolished the “temporary shed,” as initially described, and had obtained permission to construct a new structure.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Court of Principal Munsif, Nedumangad, accepted the appellant’s plea and ordered the removal of the structure. The respondent then appealed to the High Court of Kerala, arguing that he had complied with the Lok Adalat award by demolishing the original structure. He further contended that he had obtained the necessary permissions to construct a new structure. The High Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to verify the site. The High Court set aside the order of the Executing Court, holding that the Lok Adalat award did not prohibit the respondent from constructing a new structure after obtaining due permission.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation of the Lok Adalat award passed under Section 19 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The award was based on the assurance of the respondent to demolish the existing structure. The Kerala Panchayath Building Rules, 2011, were also relevant, as the appellant claimed the initial structure violated these rules. The High Court also considered the aspect of whether the new construction was as per the permit.

Section 19 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, deals with the organization of Lok Adalats. It states that:

“Every Lok Adalat organised for an area shall consist of such number of- (a) serving or retired judicial officers; or (b) other persons, of repute; as may be determined by the State Authority or the District Authority or, as the case may be, the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or the High Court Legal Services Committee or the Taluk Legal Services Committee, as the case may be.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant contended that the Lok Adalat award was a permanent prohibition on any construction on the respondent’s plot.
• The appellant argued that the respondent had not demolished the original structure but had merely replaced it with a new one.
• The appellant asserted that the new structure also posed health hazards and violated building rules.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that he had demolished the original “temporary shed” as per the Lok Adalat award.
• The respondent contended that he had obtained the necessary permissions to construct a new structure.
• The respondent asserted that the new structure complied with the building rules and was not a health hazard.

Panchayat’s Stand:

• The Panchayat affirmed that the respondent had demolished the existing building.
• The Panchayat confirmed that the respondent had obtained permission to construct a new building, and the construction was as per the approved plan.

The innovativeness of the argument lies in the appellant’s attempt to interpret the Lok Adalat award as a permanent ban on construction, which was not explicitly stated in the award.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. What is the width of the award passed by the Lok Adalat dated 23rd August, 2013?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific case laws or books in this judgment. The main authorities considered were the Lok Adalat award itself, the affidavit of the Panchayat, the report of the Advocate Commissioner, and the building permit issued to the respondent.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Lok Adalat Award* was interpreted to be limited to the removal of the existing structure at the time, not a permanent ban on construction.
• The Panchayat’s affidavit* was relied upon to confirm the demolition of the old structure and the grant of permission for the new one.
• The Advocate Commissioner’s report* was used to verify that the new structure was indeed a new construction and not a continuation of the old one.
• The Building Permit* was accepted as proof that the respondent had obtained the necessary permission for the new construction.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the factual evidence presented, including the Panchayat’s affidavit and the Advocate Commissioner’s report, which confirmed that the original structure was indeed demolished and a new structure was built with proper permission. The Court also emphasized that the Lok Adalat award should be interpreted strictly within its terms, which was limited to the removal of the existing structure and not a permanent prohibition on future construction. The Court also noted that the appellant’s concerns about potential health hazards and rule violations could be addressed through appropriate legal channels.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered the evidence and concluded that the respondent had complied with the Lok Adalat award by demolishing the original structure and had obtained the necessary permission for the new construction. The court also noted that the appellant’s concerns about potential health hazards and rule violations could be addressed through appropriate legal channels.

The court rejected the appellant’s interpretation of the Lok Adalat award, stating that the award was limited to the demolition of the existing structure and did not prohibit future construction with the necessary permissions. The court also observed that whether the respondent had constructed the new structure as per the permit was a matter to be considered by the competent authority.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court was correct in its view. The Court stated:

“The moot question is the width of the award passed by the Lok Adalat dated 23rd August, 2013. It is, in our opinion, obviously limited to removal of the existing structure on the stated plot occupied by respondent No.1 within three months.”

The Court further stated:

“The High Court rightly rejected the argument of the appellant that the effect of the award was to completely prohibit putting up of any structure/building on the stated plot occupied by respondent No.1, irrespective of the permission granted by the competent authority in that regard.”

The Court also noted:

“Whether respondent No.1 had constructed the structure as per the permit was a matter to be considered by the competent authority who had issued such a permit and it would be open to the appellant to approach that authority for appropriate reliefs, if so advised.”

There were no minority opinions in this case. The decision was unanimous.

Key Takeaways

• A Lok Adalat award directing the demolition of a structure does not automatically prohibit future construction on the same land if proper permissions are obtained.
• Factual evidence, such as affidavits from relevant authorities and reports from commissioners, are crucial in determining compliance with legal orders.
• Concerns about violations of building rules or health hazards should be addressed with the appropriate authorities.
• The scope of a Lok Adalat award is limited to its specific terms and cannot be interpreted to include broader prohibitions unless explicitly stated.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions, but it clarified that the appellant could approach the relevant authorities for any grievances regarding the new construction or its compliance with rules.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a Lok Adalat award directing the demolition of a structure does not automatically prohibit future construction on the same land if proper permissions are obtained. This clarifies the scope of such awards and prevents their misinterpretation as permanent bans on construction.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision. The Court clarified that the Lok Adalat award was limited to the removal of the existing structure and did not prohibit the respondent from constructing a new structure after obtaining the necessary permissions. The Court also noted that the appellant could pursue other legal remedies if there were concerns about the new structure’s compliance with the law or potential health hazards.