Can Lok Adalat awards resolving an apportionment dispute among rival claimants be treated as a settlement reached in a "class action" suit under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?

No. Order I Rule 8 presupposes a community of interest among the persons represented. Where the claimants are themselves in dispute over entitlement to compensation and are not "two parties" arriving at a settlement, there is no common interest capable of representation, and characterising such awards as a class-action settlement compounds rather than cures the infirmity.

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Sections 29, 30, 31 — apportionment of compensation among rival claimants — Lok Adalat award — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order I Rule 8 — Section 29 apportionment agreement — concurrence of all persons interested — Held: An agreement on apportionment of compensation under Section 29 of the Act, 1894 necessarily requires the concurrence of all persons interested; a partial or truncated consensus, wherein some claimants are excluded, cannot take effect as an "agreement" within the meaning of Section 29. (¶34, 45) Lok Adalat awards characterised as class action settlement under Order I Rule 8 CPC — Held further: Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 presupposes a community of interest among the persons represented; where rival claimants are themselves in dispute over entitlement to compensation, there is no common interest capable of representation, and characterising such awards as a class-action settlement compounds rather than cures the infirmity. (¶47-49) enjoyment survey — cannot determine title or entitlement — Held further: An enjoyment survey captures nothing more than the fact of physical occupation and does not examine legal title, right, or interest; its findings cannot be treated as conclusive of entitlement to compensation. (¶40-41) impugned judgment set aside — remitted for de novo hearing — Held further: The impugned judgment was set aside and the matter remitted to the Principal District Judge, Khammam, for a de novo hearing of the apportionment reference within six months, uninfluenced by any observations; appeal allowed. (¶53-54)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of SINGAPOGU BABU RAO & ORS v. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LAND ACQUISITION) & ORS — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India