Back
2012 Supreme(Pat) 568
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH, J.
Shambhoo Nath S/o Late Gaya Prasad - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna & Ors.- Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.218 of 2010
Decided on: 11-04-2012
For the Petitioners: Mr. Kr. Dhirendra Pratap Singh Mr. Dhirendra Kr. Jha
For the Respondents: Mr. SC-5
Headnote:Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 with Amendment Act 37 of 2002-Chapter VI, Sections 9 to 22 and Chapter VI-A-Sections 22-A to 22-C-Jurisdiction of permanent Lok Adalat-From the provisions of Sections 19 to 22 under Chapter VI and that of Section 22-A to 22-C introduced under chapter VI-A in 2002, it is evident that permanent Lok Adalat would exercise jurisdiction only in respect of the matter of public utility service mentioned in Section 22-A and not in cases in private domain-The permanent Lok Adalat organized under chapter VI can take cognizance in private domain, if the parties consent or arrive at an agreement, irrespective of its value-The Permanent Lok Adalat under Chapter VI performs only conciliatory roles without any restrain on its pecuniary jurisdiction, whereas permanent Lok Adalat under Section 22-C of Chapter VI-A not only performs role of conciliator but also an arbitrator and adjudicator-There is no restriction on a permanent Lok Adalat/Lok Adalat to settle dispute between two private parties on the basis of consent and compromise involving properties worth more than 10 lac under Section 22 chapter VI of the Act-Writ petition dismissed. (Paras 30 & 31)
AIR 1950 Pat 318; AIR 1960 Pat 24 (F.B.) 1974 BBCJ 458-Referred to.
1. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order and award dated 31.5.2008, passed by the Special/Permanent Lok Adalat, Gaya in Partition suit no.194 of 2007 as well as order dated 13.11.2009, passed by the same court in Pre-Litigation Case No.82 of 2008, rejecting his petition for setting aside the said award.
2. Before I take the grounds of challenge raised by the petitioner, it would be necessary to notice the facts of the case in brief:
(i) The petitioner is plaintiff of Title Suit no.194 of 2007 filed in court of Sub-Judge, Gaya, in which respondent no.2 (Vishwanath Kumar) and respondent no.3 (Smt. Sarswati Devi) were defendant nos. 1 and 2 respectively. The petitioner Shambhoo Nath and respondent no.2 Vishwanath Prasad are own sons of Smt. Sarswati Devi, defendant no.2/respondent no.3.
3. The plaintiff-petitioner prayed for the following reliefs in the title suit:
“(A) A preliminary decree of partition of 1/3rd share of the plaintiff in the suit land be passed.
(B) After appointment of a survey knowing pleader commissioner a separate takhta of 1/3rd share of the plaintiff be carved out.
(C) Plaintiff’s share regarding the payment of the loans to the banks be ascertained.
(D) Cost of the suit.
(E) Any other relief/reliefs this learned court deem fit just and proper.”
4. On 24.05.2008, the parties filed a detailed and exhaustive compromise petition with respect to their assets and liabilities. The trial court referred the suit and compromise petition dated 24.05.2008 (Annexure-2) to Permanent Lok Adalat with consent of the parties for expeditious disposal. The Special Lok Adalat/Permanent Lok Adalat passed the award on 31.05.2008 (Annexure-3) in terms of compromise petition with consent of the parties duly endorsed by their respective advocates. The award was signed by all the members including the Presiding Officer. After some time, Shambhoo Nath (petitioner) and his mother Sarswati Devi filed a Misc. petition before Permanent Lok Adalat for recalling the award and return of the plaint of Original Title Partition suit no.194 of 2007 to the court of Sub-Judge-I, Gaya for trial. The Miscellaneous petition filed by the petitioner and respondent no.3 was registered as Pre-Litigation case no. 82 of 2009.
5. The petitioner has raised the following grounds:
(i) That the Presiding Officer was not present in the court on the date of making of the award and as such there was no Coram and the award is bad in law.
(ii) The Special Lok Adalat/Permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the dispute where the value of property exceeds Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten lac) in view of Section 22 (C) of the Legal Services Act, 1987.
6. I will take up, ground no.1:
Ref.: Ground no.1: That the Presiding Officer was not present in the court on the date of making of the award and as such there was no Coram and the award is bad in law.
7. The petitioner has contended that the Presiding Officer was not present in the court on the date of making of the award and as such the award has no legal sanctity. I find that the award has been signed by all the members of the Special Lok Adalat/Permanent Lok Adalat including the Presiding Officer Sri H.N. Singh. The petitioner too does not state that the award does not bear the signature of the presiding officer. He does not even state that the signature is ante-dated. No evidence or supporting material has been brought on record to show that the Presiding Officer was not present in the court on the date of passing of the award. The allegation is vague and too ambiguous to be accepted and is accordingly rejected.
8. Ref.: Ground no.2: The Special Lok Adalat/Permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the dispute where the value of property exceeds Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten lac) in view of Section 22 (C) of the Legal Services Act, 1987.
9. The petitioner states that the Special Lok Adalat/Permanent Lok Adalat does not have jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter where the
