The Patna HC has held that a Permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to record a compromise in a land dispute, as its jurisdiction under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, is confined to disputes concerning public utility services. The Court declared a 2011 award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Sasaram, Rohtas, in a land partition dispute to be void ab initio and set it aside.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy held that Sections 22-A and 22-B(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, do not empower a Permanent Lok Adalat to record compromises concerning land disputes.
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by Bigan Shah seeking modification of an award dated July 7, 2011, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Sasaram, Rohtas, in Case No. 295(D) of 2010. The dispute arose from a partition proceeding instituted on September 14, 2010, by the father of respondent Nos. 11 to 14. He had sought partition of ancestral land, claiming a one-fourth share in the property described in the plaint.
The petitioner and other family members were impleaded as defendants in the proceedings. During the pendency of the matter, the parties arrived at a compromise, pursuant to which the Permanent Lok Adalat passed an award on July 7, 2011. According to the petitioner, however, certain details concerning the disputed land had inadvertently been omitted from the award due to a typographical mistake. He contended that the compromise petition dated May 9, 2011, formed an integral part of the award and that the omission ought to be rectified. Specifically, the petitioner sought incorporation of Khata No. 69, Plot No. 271, measuring 1½ decimals, in Schedule-C of the compromise, contending that the omission was a bona fide typographical error.
The petitioner accordingly approached the High Court seeking a direction to the members of the Permanent Lok Adalat to modify the award. Opposing the petition, counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 13 argued that the Permanent Lok Adalat had no jurisdiction to review its own award, even where a mistake was alleged to have occurred.
Examining the statutory provisions governing Permanent Lok Adalats, the High Court held that the forum lacked jurisdiction to record the compromise in the land dispute in the first place. The Court observed:
“Upon perusal of the aforesaid provisions of Sections 22-A and 22-B (1) of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987, it is evident that a Permanent Lok Adalat is established for adjudicating disputes pertaining to Public Utility Services and it has no jurisdiction to record a compromise in respect of a land dispute. Therefore, the award dated 07.07.2011 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Sasaram, Rohtas, is void ab initio.”
The Bench thus held that the award was invalid from its inception because the Permanent Lok Adalat had exercised jurisdiction over a subject matter beyond its statutory authority.
Consequently, rather than directing correction of the alleged typographical mistake, the High Court set aside the entire award dated July 7, 2011.
The Court, however, granted liberty to the parties to approach the competent Civil Court for recording their compromise or to file an application before the District Legal Services Authority, Sasaram, as a pre-litigation case for recording the compromise.
Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of by setting aside the Permanent Lok Adalat's award and leaving the parties free to pursue the remedies specified by the Court.
Appearance:
For the Petitioner: Mrs. Smriti Kumari, Advocate; Mrs. Maya Shankar Mishra, Advocate; Mrs. Sneha Ranjan, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Bajarangi Lal, Advocate; Mr. Priya Ranjan Kumar, SC-23; Mr. Onkar Kumar, AC to SC-23