Permanent Lok Adalat Can’t Record Compromise In Respect Of Land Dispute: Patna High Court
The Patna High Court was considering a petition seeking issuance of a direction to the Members of the Permanent Lok Adalat, Sasaram, Rohtas, to modify an award.
Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy, Patna High Court
While setting aside an order of the Permanent Lok Adalat, the Patna High Court has held that the Adalat has no jurisdiction to record a compromise in respect of a land dispute.
The High Court was considering a petition seeking issuance of a direction to the Members of the Permanent Lok Adalat, Sasaram, Rohtas, to modify the award in view of the statements made in a compromise petition, filed by the petitioner as well as the respondents, by incorporating some plot property measuring an area of 1½ decimals, in Schedule-C of the compromise, which was inadvertently left out on account of a bona fide typographical mistake.
The Single Bench of Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy held, “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.”
Advocate Smriti Kumari represented the Petitioner while Advocate Bajarangi Lal and Standing Counsel Priya Ranjan Kumar represented the Respondents.
Factual Background
The father of the respondents filed a case before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Rohtas, Sasaram, seeking one-fourth share in the land mentioned in the plaint, through partition by meets and bounds, with the assistance of a survey-knowing advocate. In the said case, he impleaded the petitioner as well as the ancestors of respondents as defendants.
It was the case of the father of the respondent that his ancestor, namely, Javit Shah, had three sons, namely, Ramroop Shah, Ramcharitar Shah and Ramsundar Shah. Ramsundar Shah died issueless, whereas Ramroop Shah had four sons, i.e. defendants 1 to 4. The petitioners, Bifan Shah and Bigan Shah, were impleaded as defendants. The parties arrived at a compromise, pursuant to which an award was passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat in respect of the land in dispute between the parties. The petitioner claimed that, due to a typographical mistake on the part of the typist, certain details relating to a portion of the land were inadvertently omitted from the award. The petition thus came to be filed seeking incorporation of the said details therein.
Reasoning
Referring to Sections 22-A and 22-B (1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, the Bench clarified 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.
The Bench thus set aside the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat while granting 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, by way of a pre-litigation case for recording the compromise.
Cause Title: Bigan Shah v. The State of Bihar (Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20288 of 2025)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocates Smriti Kumari, Maya Shankar Mishra, Sneha Ranjan
Respondent: Advocate Bajarangi Lal, c, AC to SC Onkar Kumar