Permanent Lok Adalat is empowered to decide disputes on merits when parties fail to reach a settlement.

The Petitioner (landowner) entered into a development agreement in 2011 with Respondent No. 2 (Builder) for the construction of "Aparna Enclave," under which she was entitled to twelve flats and a monthly rent/electricity allowance

Although the project was delayed, the Petitioner received possession of her share in 2017 and an additional sum of ₹28,51,000 for finishing work, paid through her son-in-law

Despite these settlements, the Petitioner approached the Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA) in 2018 (Case No. 71/2018), alleging non-delivery of flats and seeking further reliefs

The PLA dismissed her petition on 17.01.2020, concluding her claims were not genuine

The Petitioner challenged this order via the present writ, arguing the PLA exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding the matter on merits in the absence of a compromise

The court primarily applied Chapter VI-A of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (added by the 2002 Amendment), specifically focusing on the distinction between a "Lok Adalat" and a "Permanent Lok Adalat" regarding pre-litigation conciliation and settlement

It relied on the precedent established by the Supreme Court in Canara Bank v. G.S. Jayarama (2022), which clarifies that while a regular Lok Adalat cannot adjudicate without consent, a Permanent Lok Adalat is empowered to decide a dispute on merits if conciliation fails to ensure speedy justice for public utility services

The Court rejected the Petitioner's reliance on Naval Kishor Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, noting the Petitioner failed to distinguish between the limited powers of a regular Lok Adalat and the adjudicatory powers of a Permanent Lok Adalat

The Court observed that the Petitioner had suppressed material facts regarding the receipt of possession and the final payment of ₹28,51,000

Applying the rationale from Canara Bank, the Court reasoned that the PLA is not merely a mediatory body but an alternative dispute resolution forum designed to prevent "unnecessary delay" by deciding cases on merits when settlement is impossible

In this instance, since the Petitioner's claims were found to be factually incorrect and lacked genuinenity, the PLA acted within its statutory mandate to dismiss the claim rather than referring the parties back to a civil court

The writ petition was dismissed as being without merit and based on a "false narration" of facts

The Court imposed a cost of ₹5,000 on the Petitioner, payable to the counsel for Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 within four weeks