'Jurisdictional Transgression': Rajasthan High Court Quashes Lok Adalat Order On Title Dispute

The Rajasthan High Court has held that a Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA) cannot decide dispute on issuance of pattas (title deed) since it involves determination of land title, ownership and proprietary rights which are matters of serious civil consequences requiring full-fledged adjudication under the procedure of law.

While setting aside an order by a Permanent Lok Adalat, the bench of Justice Farjand Ali held that the salutary object of expeditious and efficient adjudication with which PLAs were constituted could not be achieved by bypassing the legally mandated procedures. It was opined that every legal process could not be shortened in the name of speed.

“PLA is a quasi judicial authority having a limited and circumscribed jurisdiction. The PLA is not a court of plenary jurisdiction and does not possess the authority to adjudicate disputes by adopting the regular and elaborate procedure of law as is required in civil proceedings… It was never the legislative intent to convert the PLA into an alternative forum to civil courts for adjudication of intricate civil disputes, especially those involving property rights, succession, transfer, or competing claims of ownership.”

The Court was hearing a petition filed against the order of the PLA wherein it had directed issuance of patta in relation to a land in favour of the respondent, and awarded compensation. Hence, the petitioner filed this petition.

The Court refereed to Sections 22A and 22B of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, (“the Act”), that provided definition and structure of PLA, and held that PLAs were constituted with a limited scope pertaining to public utility services.

It was held that while the scope of public utility services was expanded to include “housing and real estate services”, there was a clear distinction between the consumer-oriented services rendered by housing authorities or real estate developers, and administrative or sovereign revenue functions of the State like issuance of pattas.

“The expression “housing and real estate services” primarily refers to consumer-oriented services, such as construction of residential units, development of housing projects, and provision of amenities like roads, water supply, electricity, drainage and maintenance of housing complexes. In cases where a developer or authority fails to deliver such promised services, resulting in deficiency, the jurisdiction of the PLA may legitimately be invoked. Issuance, cancellation or modification of patta stands on an entirely different footing. These acts involve determination of title, ownership and proprietary rights, which are matters of serious civil consequence.”

The Court observed that determination of rights and title could not be done by PLA since its jurisdiction was summary and circumscribed. Such adjudication fell in the scope of revenue authorities, and the Act never intended to substitute or supplant regular civil or revenue proceedings with a PLA adjudication.

It was stated that the issues which were otherwise triable exclusively by civil courts, could not be decided by PLA merely because the definition of public utility services included housing and real estate services.

In this background, it was observed that the question of grant of patta was not a simple or ministerial act, as it involved adjudication on many foundational aspects, falling within the scope of competent civil court and not a summary forum.

Accordingly, while highlighting transgression of jurisdiction by the PLA, the order passed by it was set aside.

Title: Urban Improvement Trust v Poonam Chand

Citation: 2026 Live Law (Raj) 39

Click Here To Read/ Download Order

Order