Appeal involving compensation below ₹5 lakh dismissed without adjudicating merits, pursuant to State litigation policy.

The appellant-State challenged an award of the Reference Court in a land-acquisition matter.

The compensation amount involved in the appeal was below ₹5,00,000.

The original claimant submitted that, under the State Government’s Resolution dated 25 October 2016, appeals involving compensation below ₹5,00,000 were required to be withdrawn before the Lok Adalat and should not remain pending indefinitely.

The learned AGP did not dispute the existence or applicability of the Resolution.

Whether the appeal involving compensation of less than ₹5,00,000 should be entertained on merits in view of the State Government’s litigation policy under the Resolution dated 25 October 2016.

Whether dismissal of the appeal on account of the smallness of the amount would determine or prejudice any legal issue or compensation issue arising from the relevant acquisition notification.

Whether the amount deposited by the appellant should be disbursed to the claimant after appropriate verification and deduction of court fee.

The Court applied the State Government’s Revenue Department Resolution dated 25 October 2016, which classified claims up to ₹5,00,000 as petty claims and directed that land-acquisition matters involving stakes below that threshold be withdrawn in the Lok Adalat.

The Court further applied the procedural principle that an appeal falling within such a State litigation policy need not be kept pending indefinitely for disposal in a forthcoming Lok Adalat and may be disposed of during regular hearing.

The dismissal was expressly limited to the smallness of the amount and was not an adjudication of any legal or compensation issue involved in the appeal.

The Court found that the compensation awarded by the Reference Court was below the ₹5,00,000 threshold prescribed by the State’s litigation policy.

Since the policy treated such land-acquisition claims as petty claims intended for withdrawal in the Lok Adalat, and the respondent’s submission regarding the policy was not disputed by the State, the Court declined to examine the appeal on merits.

The Court also reasoned that the matter should not remain pending merely because it had not been withdrawn in an earlier Lok Adalat.

To avoid unintended precedential or substantive consequences, the Court clarified that the dismissal did not decide any legal issue or the appropriate compensation in other matters arising from the same notification.

The connected Civil Application was disposed of as having become infructuous.

The Registry was directed to return the record and proceedings to the concerned court.

The Reference Court was directed to disburse the deposited compensation, after deducting court fee, together with interest, to the claimant(s) upon due verification, identification, and verification of their entitlement.