Pre-litigation Lok Adalats cannot decide property partition disputes: Patna High Court declares 10-year-old award non-est and non-binding

The petitioner claimed ownership and possession over 1,215 sq. ft. of land at Village New Taridih, Gaya, purchased through a registered sale deed dated 28 January 2010 for ₹2.99 lakhs.

According to her, her husband obtained the original sale deed and, without her knowledge or authority, instituted a pre-litigation partition proceeding before the D.L.S.A., Aurangabad, being Pre-Litigation Case No. 55 of 2013.

A Vakalatnama and a joint compromise petition were allegedly filed on 9 July 2013, and the Permanent Lok Adalat accepted the compromise and passed an award on 11 July 2013, directing that the compromise petition form part of the award.

The petitioner asserted that she neither signed the compromise nor authorised anyone to represent her and was not impleaded in the proceeding.

Subsequently, Respondent No. 1 allegedly obtained mutation of the property in his name and transferred it to Respondent No. 5 through a registered sale deed dated 27 March 2014.

The petitioner’s civil suit seeking a declaration that the Lok Adalat award and subsequent sale deed were void was dismissed on the ground that a Lok Adalat award could not be challenged before a civil court; her title appeal was stated to be pending.

Whether the Permanent Lok Adalat had jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of a pre-litigation partition/property dispute by recording a compromise and passing an award?

Whether an award allegedly passed without the petitioner’s knowledge, consent, or authority could bind her or be sustained in law?

Whether the challenge to the award was barred by delay or limitation after approximately ten years?

The Court applied the principle that Lok Adalats cannot entertain or adjudicate contentious property disputes, particularly title, partition, or possession disputes, at the pre-litigation stage where the parties’ title, identity, and competing claims require adjudication.

It relied principally on Nawal Kishore Prasad Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., LPA No. 1923 of 2011, decided on 27 November 2013, which directed Lok Adalats in Bihar not to entertain property disputes or contentious matters and cautioned that no decree concerning title, partition, or possession could be passed without proof of title and an opportunity to establish the parties’ respective cases.

The Court also relied on the reasoning of a Co-ordinate Bench in Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No. 538 of 2022, decided on 25 July 2024, holding that even a compromise voluntarily presented at the pre-litigation stage cannot cure the jurisdictional bar concerning property disputes.

An order passed without jurisdiction is non est and does not become binding merely because it is challenged after delay; consequently, limitation was held inapplicable to the challenge against the impugned award.

The Court treated the proceeding as a property/partition dispute involving the petitioner’s alleged self-acquired property, rather than a matter suitable for consensual settlement before the Permanent Lok Adalat.

Applying Nawal Kishore Prasad Singh, it held that the Lok Adalat could not assume jurisdiction over such a dispute merely because a compromise petition had been filed, since the dispute required examination of title, ownership, possession, and the identity and authority of the persons participating in the proceeding.

The petitioner’s assertion that she neither consented to the compromise nor authorised the Vakalatnama further demonstrated that the award could not validly bind her.

Since the award was rendered in a matter beyond the Lok Adalat’s jurisdiction, it was considered non est; therefore, the respondents’ limitation objection based on the lapse of approximately ten years was rejected.

The award was declared non est and not binding upon the petitioner, and the objection of delay or limitation was rejected.

The Civil Miscellaneous application was accordingly allowed.