Shakuntala Devi vs The State of Bihar
- Court
- Patna High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9025 of 2020
======================================================
Shakuntala Devi w/o Late Surendra Prasad Sinha r/o Kothwan, P.S. and P.O.-
Khagaul, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Patna, Bihar.
2. M/s Shreeya Construction Pvt. Ltd, a company registered under Indian
Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Shyam Sundar Complex,
Near Jagdeo Path, Bailey Road, P.S. and P.O. Shastri Nagar, District- Patna,
Bihar- 800014 through its Directors.
3. Sangeeta Prakash w/o Sanjay Kumar r/o East Budha Colony, Chakaram, P.S.
and P.O. Budha Colony, District- Patna ( in official capacity as Director of
M/s Shreeya Construction Pvt. Ltd.)
4. Anjana Sharma w/o Sanjay Kumar Sharma r/o 203, Shreeya Apartment, Ara
Garden Road, P.S.- Rupaspur, District- Patna (in official capacity as Director
of M/s Shreeya Construction Pvt. Ltd)
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Chhaya Kriti, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : A.G.
For Shreeya Construction: Mr. Vinay Ranjan, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 23-07-2026
Heard Ms. Chhaya Kriti, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Vinay Ranjan, learned counsel for the Shreeya
Construction Private Limited and its representatives.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
“(i) for issuance of appropriate writs(s),
order (s) or direction(s) in the nature of certiorari
or any other writ(s) order(s) directions(s) for
quashing and setting aside of the order dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.9025 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026
2/17
17.01.2020 passed by Court of Permanent Lok
Adalat, Patna in excess of its powers and without
following the mandate provisions of law.
(ii) for issuance of order for stay of the
impugned order dated 17.01.2020 during the
pendency of instant case in the interest of justice.
(iii) for issuance of any other writ (s)
order(s) or direction (s) as the petitioner is entitled
to.”
3. The matter relates to a piece of land and the details
of which is/ are as under:
(i) Khata Nos. 132 and 123;
(ii) CS Plot Nos. 178 and 179;
(iii) area total 24 decimal;
(iv) village Kothma;
(v) District- Patna.
4. The aforesaid land was to be developed in the name
and style of ‘ Aparna Enclave ’ and the parties signed the
agreement on 21.10.2011 . As per the agreement, the apartment
was to be constructed within a period of three years with a grace
period of six months (till mid 2015) and the lady petitioner was
entitled to twelve flats while the Builder was to retain the rest of
twelve flats.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9025 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026
3/17
5. The project got delayed and the petitioner ultimately
got possession of her share of twelve flats only in the year 2017.
Further, as per the agreement signed between the parties, the lady
was entitled to Rs.30,000/- as rent-cum-electricity bill which was
regularly paid to her.
6. After the physical possession was given in the year
2017, as the work remained unfinished, accordingly, the stand of
the respondents is/are that they paid an additional amount of Rs.
28,51,000/-. The documents record the signatures of Ashok
Kumar and Ajay Kumar. Ajay Kumar is the son-in-law of the
lady. The receipts of payment made to the petitioner is/are part of
the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents.
7. The aforesaid documents also show that the
signatories to it recorded that it is full and final payment. These
payments were made in the months of April-May, 2018.
8. As the story further unfolds, the petitioner after
receiving the amount of Rs. 28,51,000/- moved before the
Permanent Lok Adalat, Patna in PLA Case No. 71 of 2018
( Shankuntala Devi vs. Shreeya Construction Private Limited
and others) by filing petition in the month of September, 2018.
9. In the petition dated 28.09.2018, the petitioner
complained that the developer is neither completing the project
nor it has been transferred to the lady. It is to be noted herein that
Patna High Court CWJC No.9025 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026
4/17
the stand of the respondents is/are that the flats were transferred
in the year 2017 itself and the full and final payment for finishing
the flats were also paid (Rs.28,51,000/-) which happened prior to
the filing of the petition before the Permanent Lok Adalat. In
short, the submission is that wrong facts were placed before the
aforesaid Court that the flats have not been handed over to them.
10. The Permanent Lok Adalat took up the PLA Case
No. 71 of 2018 , the construction company was noticed and
thereafter, after hearing the parties, disposed it of on 17.01.2020.
The findings stand recorded in paragraph nos. 5 to 7 which read
as follows:
“5. On perusal of the record we find that
the petitioner has not denied that delivery of
possession on the 12 flats falling in her share has
not been given to her. As per contention of the O ps
in written statement delivery of possession on 12
flats has been given to the petitioner and in the
written statement itself the O Ps have denied the
claim of the petitioner regarding giving of Rs 4000/-
per flat per month to the petitioner rather the O Ps
have specifically stated that they have given Rs
30,000/- per month from April 2012 to the petitioner
on her assurance that she would return the entire
Patna High Court CWJC No.9025 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026
5/17
amount after delivery of possession of flats of her
share. The O Ps have also stated that after
blackmailing the O Ps the petitioner has taken Rs
28,51000/-from the O Ps. From the written
statement it also transpires that the land was under
some litigation from before the agreement to which
the petitioner had suppressed during construction
work there was hindrance being made by local
people and due to that some delay has been caused
and as per terms and condition as contained in para
4 of the development agreement the builder agrees
to construct and give possession of the owner's area
to the land owner within a period of three years
from the date of sanction of plan by the authority
concerned with a grace period of six month and this
period will be subject to force major and such
happening as fire, tempest, accident, exceptionally
inclement whether, rioting etc and any other act of
god ie a viz major, if there is any further delay in
giving delivery of possession of owner's area. In the
written statement the O Ps have clearly mentioned
that the petitioner had suppressed some facts about
litigation in property and hence the local people
Patna High Court CWJC No.9025 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026
6/17
made hindrance in completion of the project
causing some delay. Hence some delay in
completion of project has been explained by the O
ps satisfactorily.
6. We find that written statement on
behalf of the O Ps was filed on 31.01.2019 but
thereafter the petitioner has not denied the claim of
the O P whereas the O Ps have already denied the
allegation of the petitioner made in the petition. The
petitioner has not denied that she has not received
Rs 30,000/- per month from the Opposite parties
from April 2012 which was to be returned by the
petitioner to the O Ps after taking delivery of
possession over flats of her share and further has
not denied about receipt of amount of rupees
2851000/- in the name of fining work. Therefore,
the O Ps are at liberty to take steps for realization
these amounts from the petitioner.
7. In the result after considering the
submissions of the parties we find that the claim of
the petitioner is not genuine and the petitioner has
not been able to prove the same and hence she is
not entitled to any relief.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9025 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026
7/17
Accordingly, the instant petition filed by
the petitioner is hereby dismissed.”
11. This Court has taken note of the observation of the
Permanent Lok Adalat that the written statement of the Opposite
Party filed on 21.01.2019 ( as recorded in paragraph no.5 of its
order ) has not been denied by the petitioner in her petition. She
has also not denied receiving Rs. 30,000/- per month from the
Opposite Party/respondents herein from April 2012 onwards as
also the payment of Rs. 28,51,000/-.
12. The petition was accordingly dismissed vide an
th
order dated 17 January 2020.
13. Aggrieved, the present writ petition.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner after some
argument submits that instead of disputing the facts, she would
restrict herself to addressing the Court on legal issues inasmuch
as the Permanent Lok Adalat had no business to go beyond any
compromise that may have taken place between the parties. If
they are at the loggerheads, the Permanent Lok Adalat cannot
pass an order in favour of one party, herein, the respondents.
15. In support of her case, learned counsel for the
petitioner has relied on a Division Bench judgment of the Patna
High Court delivered by Hon’ble the Chief Justice ( as his
Lordship then was ) in the case of Naval Kishor Prasad Singh
Patna High Court CWJC No.9025 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026
8/17
and others vs. State of Bihar and others in LPA No. 1923 of
2011 disposed of on 27.11.2013. She has taken to this Court to
the unnumbered paragraphs 5 and 6 which read as under:
“We regret that although there have been
standing instructions not to entertain property
disputes in Lok Adalats, the Lok Adalats in the State
of Bihar have a tendency to receive property
disputes in Lok Adalats and to record compromise
that too at a pre-litigation stage.
In absence of proof of title to the
property of identity of the parties and the
genuineness of the claims, no decree for title or
partition or possession can be passed. The very
stage of proving one's case is obliterated when one
approaches the Lok Adalat.”
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as
the Permanent Lok Adalat erred in deciding the matter, it needs
interference.
17. Learned counsel representing the respondent nos. 2
to 4, Mr. Vinay Ranjan on the other hand submits that so far as
the facts of handing over the twelve flats in the year 2017, the
payment of Rs. 30,000/- per month as rent/electricity bill as also
Patna High Court CWJC No.9025 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026
9/17
the full and final payment of Rs. 28,51,000/- to the lady through
her son-in-law towards finishing the unfinished work are
concerned; it has finally not been denied by the petitioner, Thus,
the only issue that has been raised is that the Permanent Lok
Adalat had no business to decide the present case.
18. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner by
putting forward her case has completely failed to differentiate
the Lok Adalat with that of Permanent Lok Adalat.
19. The submission is that the power of the Lok Adalat
is limited inasmuch as only if the parties come to an amicable
settlement, it is being sealed by the Lok Adalat and an Award is
prepared. Further, if the parties fail to come to a settlement and
the dispute remains, the Lok Adalat sends the matter back to the
Court.
20. Thus, to resolve this issue, the lawmakers came out
with the Permanent Lok Adalat. Learned counsel submits that the
Hon’ble Apex Court has repeatedly held that in case, the party
fails to resolve the issue, the Permanent Lok Adalat has been
given the power to venture into the dispute and decide the same.
21. In support of the said contention, learned counsel
for the respondent nos. 2 to 4 has relied upon an order of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Canara Bank vs. G S
Jayarama (Civil Appeal Case No. 3872 of 2022) decided on
Patna High Court CWJC No.9025 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026
10/17
th
19 May 2022 with reference to paragraphs 15 and 16 , which
read as under:
15. These provisions demonstrate that the
power of the Lok Adalat is limited, even though it
may have some powers of the civil courts and the
proceedings before it have some trappings of a
judicial proceeding. A Lok Adalat shall only attempt
to reach a compromise or settlement between the
parties whose case is before it. If a compromise or
settlement is reached, the Lok Adalat shall issue it
as its award, and the statute deems it to be
equivalent to the decree of a court, against which
no appeal shall lie. On the other hand, if it fails to
reach a compromise or settlement, the Lok Adalat
shall return the case to the court or advise the
parties to approach the court.
16 . On the other hand, Permanent Lok
Adalats are constituted under Chapter VI-A of the
LSA Act titled "Pre-Litigation Conciliation and
Settlement". The chapter was added to the LSA Act
by The Legal Services Authorities (Amendment) Act
2012. It is necessary to analyse the rationale for
introducing such an institutional mechanism for
Patna High Court CWJC No.9025 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026
11/17
resolving disputes when Lok Adalats constituted
under Section 19 of the LSA Act were already in
existence. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of
the LSA Amendment Act reads as follows:
"(1) The Legal Services
Authorities Act, 1987 was enacted to
constitute legal services authorities for
providing (sic) and competent legal
services to the weaker sections of the
society to ensure that opportunities for
securing justice were not denied to any
citizen by reason of economic or other
disabilities and to organise Lok Adalats to
ensure that the operation of the legal
system promoted justice on a basis of
equal opportunity. The system of Lok
Adalat, which is an innovative mechanism
for alternate dispute resolution, has
proved effective for resolving disputes in
a spirit of conciliation outside the courts.
(2) However, the major
drawback in the existing scheme of
organisation of the Lok Adalats under
Patna High Court CWJC No.9025 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026
12/17
Chapter VI of the said Act is that the
system of Lok Adalats is mainly based on
compromise or settlement between the
parties. If the parties do not arrive at any
compromise or settlement, the case is
either returned to the court of law or the
parties are advised to seek remedy in a
court of law. This causes unnecessary
delay in the dispensation of justice. If
Lok Adalats are given power to decide
the cases on merits in case parties fail to
arrive at any compromise or settlement,
this problem can be tackled to a great
extent. Further, the cases which arise in
relation to public utility services such as
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited,
Delhi Vidyut Board, etc. need to be settled
urgently so that people get justice without
delay even at pre-litigation stage and thus
most of the petty cases which ought not to
go in the regular courts would be settled
at the pre-litigation stage itself which
would result in reducing the workload of
Patna High Court CWJC No.9025 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026
13/17
the regular courts to a great extent. It is,
therefore, proposed to amend the Legal
Services Authorities Act, 1987 to set up
Permanent Lok Adalats for providing
compulsory pre-litigative mechanism for
conciliation and settlement of cases
relating to public utility services."
The Statement of Objects and Reasons
indicates that Chapter VI-A was introduced to the
LSA Act to primarily create alternative dispute
resolution bodies, in the form of Permanent Lok
Adalats, to decide disputes on merits if the parties
fail to arrive at a compromise or settlement.
(emphasis supplied)
22. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner
instead of respecting the agreement signed between the parties a
decade and half ago and despite the respondents fulfilling all its
obligation as also compensating her for the unfinished work is
bent upon harassing the developer which has delayed the transfer
of flats to the other purchasers from the share of the builder. He
as such submits that the writ petition is fit to dismissed with
costs.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9025 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026
14/17
23. Having heard the parties at length and perusing the
records, this Court has taken note of the facts which are not in
dispute inasmuch as:
(i) the petitioner was the owner of a
piece of plot, details of which stand incorporated
in paragraph 3 of the order;
(ii) the petitioner and the respondent
nos. 2 to 4 entered into an agreement in the year
2011 for developing the plot and as per the
agreement, twelve flats each were to be shared by
the developer and the landlady;
(iii) the respondent nos. 2 to 4 kept on
paying Rs.30,000/- per month as rent/electricity
bill;
(iv) in the year 2017, the twelve flats
were handed over to the lady but as the internal
finishing was not done, the developer paid an
additional amount of Rs. 28,51,000/- through her
son-in-law.
24. This Court has also taken note of the fact that after
she got the flat and later received Rs. 28,51,000/-, thereafter, the
petitioner moved before the Permanent Lok Adalat and a false
narration was made that her share of flats have not been handed
Patna High Court CWJC No.9025 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026
15/17
over by the Builder. Upon notice, the developer appeared,
detailed out its own version which led the Permanent Lok Adalat
to pass the order in question in PLA Case No. 71 of 2018 dated
th
17 January 2020 dismissing the petition.
25. This Court has also taken note of the fact that time
without number, submissions were put forward by the learned
counsel for the petitioner to create confusion. Firstly, it was
averred that the payment of Rs. 28,51,000/- was made to the
petitioner’s son-in-law which was not received by the landlady.
Upon query, whether any case has been lodged against the son-
in-law, now that the respondent nos. 2 to 4 have made the
disclosure, the answer is in negative.
26. The next submission is/was that the aforesaid
payment of Rs. 28,51,000/- was made for a different agreement
and though not annexed with the reply to the counter affidavit, the
hard copy is in the file. When the Court wanted to see the copy of
the said agreement, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the hard copy is presently not available but the agreement
document is available in her mobile.
27. The Court thereafter asked for and was provided the
mobile to go through the agreement. Upon going through it, the
Court found that it actually relates to the payment of Rs. 30,000/-
to the petitioner towards the rent/electricity charge and has
Patna High Court CWJC No.9025 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026
16/17
nothing to do with any new agreement for which she contended
that Rs.28,51,000/- was paid. Having recorded the aforesaid facts,
this Court refrains from commenting further.
28. This Court has further taken note of the order of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Canara Bank (supra),
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme court clearly held that in case, there
is no amicable settlement, the Permanent Lok Adalat has the
power to decide the matter on merits. This according to the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, will tackle the problem to a great extent if
the parties do not arrive to any compromise or to settlement.
Further, the statement and object behind its creation was primarily
to create alternate dispute resolution bodies in the form of
Permanent Lok Adalat to decide disputes on merit if the parties fail
to arrive at a compromise or settlement.
29. Thus, in line with the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Canara Bank (supra), this Court
records that the Permanent Lok Adalat do have the power to settle
the dispute and pass an order accordingly if the parties fail to
arrive at a compromise or settlement as it has been created as an
alternative dispute resolution bodies. In that background, the
Permanent Lok Adalat, Patna was fully justified in passing the
order dated 17.01.2020 in PLA Case No. 71 of 2018.
30. Having recorded the facts of the case as also the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9025 of 2020 dt.23-07-2026
17/17
legal issues that the petitioner wanted to decide, the matter has
now come down to the conclusion. In the opinion of this Court,
the writ petition is fit to be dismissed with cost.
31. Accordingly, ordered.
32. The writ petition is dismissed with a cost of
Rs.5,000/- to be handed over to the learned counsel for the
respondent nos. 2 to 4, Mr. Vinay Ranjan, in the next four weeks.
Failure to do so, appropriate steps be taken for the realization of
the amount in accordance with law.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
munindra/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 25.07.2026
Transmission Date NA