Patna HC Voids 2011 Award In Family Land Dispute, Says Permanent Lok Adalat Cannot Record Land Compromises

The petitioner sought a direction to modify a 7 July 2011 award of the Permanent Lok Adalat, Sasaram, in Case No. 295 (D)/2010, by adding Khata No. 69, Plot No. 271, measuring 1½ decimals, to Schedule-C of the parties’ compromise.

He claimed the land description had been omitted through a bona fide typographical error, although it appeared in paragraph 4 of the compromise petition.

The underlying case was a partition dispute concerning land, initiated by the father of respondent Nos. 11–14; the parties subsequently reached a compromise and the Permanent Lok Adalat passed an award.

The respondents objected that the Permanent Lok Adalat had no jurisdiction to review its award.

The Court considered Sections 22-A and 22-B(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Section 22-A defines a Permanent Lok Adalat and “public utility service” for the purposes of Chapter VI-A; Section 22-B(1) provides for the establishment of Permanent Lok Adalats to exercise jurisdiction in respect of specified public utility services and areas.

The Court held that a Permanent Lok Adalat’s jurisdiction is confined to disputes pertaining to public utility services and does not extend to recording a compromise in a land dispute.

The Court treated the underlying dispute as one concerning partition of land, rather than a dispute relating to a public utility service.

On that basis, it concluded that the Permanent Lok Adalat lacked jurisdiction to record the parties’ compromise and pass the 2011 award.

Because the award was void ab initio for want of jurisdiction, the Court did not grant the requested modification to correct the alleged omission; it instead set the award aside.

It disposed of the writ petition, granting the parties liberty to approach the competent Civil Court to record their compromise or to file a pre-litigation case before the District Legal Services Authority, Sasaram.