Lok Adalats lack jurisdiction to adjudicate property disputes or pass title decrees, especially at a pre-litigation stage.

The petitioner challenged an order dated 27.02.2002 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Patna, in Lok Adalat Case No. 16(C) of 2002.

In that case, the respondent, Kirti Goswami, filed a petition against the testator, Madan Mohan Mishra, seeking a declaration of right, title, and interest over certain property based on an unprobated Will and an alleged oral gift dated 01.11.1991.

The Lok Adalat disposed of the case on the same day it was filed (at a pre-litigation stage) by accepting a joint compromise petition and passing an award.

The respondent contested the application primarily on the ground of a 20-year delay.

1. Whether the Permanent Lok Adalat has the jurisdiction to entertain and pass a compromise award in property disputes involving title and contentious issues, particularly at a pre-litigation stage?

2. Whether the challenge to an award passed without jurisdiction is barred by the law of limitation if filed after 20 years?

The court relied on the Division Bench judgment in Nawal Kishore Prasad Singh and Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. (LPA No. 1923 of 2011), which established that Lok Adalats are prohibited from entertaining property disputes or contentious issues, especially at a pre-litigation stage, as title cannot be decreed without proof of identity and genuineness.

It further applied the principle from Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No. 538 of 2022, holding that even when parties approach the Lok Adalat voluntarily with a compromise, a legal bar exists against adjudicating property disputes.

Finally, it applied the legal principle that an order passed without jurisdiction is nonest (legally non-existent) in the eyes of law.

The court reasoned that the Permanent Lok Adalat overstepped its jurisdiction by passing a title decree based on a compromise involving an unprobated Will and an oral gift.

Citing Nawal Kishore Prasad Singh, the court observed that Lok Adalats in Bihar have a persistent tendency to record compromises in property disputes without the necessary proof of title or claims, which "obliterates" the stage of proving a case.

The court noted that because the underlying award was passed without jurisdiction, it was void ab initio. Consequently, the respondent’s argument regarding the 20-year delay (limitation) was rejected, as a nonest award does not regain legality through the passage of time and cannot bind the petitioner.

The court allowed the Civil Miscellaneous application and set aside the order dated 27.02.2002.