Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAMESH KUMAR DATTA, J.
Mohan Jee Pathak - Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Registrar, Civil Court, Buxar & Ors. - Respondent/s
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8734 of 2008
Decided on : 25-10-2013
Jurisdiction - Permanent Lok Adalat - Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 - Section 16(3), Section 20(1), Section 22-B(1) - The court discussed the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat under the Bihar Land Reforms Act and the Legal Services Authorities Act. It highlighted the distinction between Permanent Lok Adalats and Lok Adalats, emphasizing that Permanent Lok Adalats can only exercise jurisdiction in respect of public utility services. The court also emphasized that Lok Adalats cannot directly entertain a case unless referred to by the Court or the Legal Services Authority, and any proceedings pursued on a wrongful assumption of jurisdiction by the Permanent Lok Adalat would be non-est and without any authority of law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of orders related to a land dispute. The petitioner claimed pre-emption of the land under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, but the respondent sold the land to a third party. The respondent filed a Pre-litigation Case before the Permanent Lok Adalat, leading to a compromise decree. The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat and the validity of the compromise decree.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Permanent Lok Adalat did not have jurisdiction to entertain the Pre-litigation case and issue the compromise decree. It held that the Lok Adalat's actions were without authority of law and quashed the orders related to the land dispute.
Issues: The issues involved the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat, the validity of the compromise decree, and the petitioner's locus standi to challenge the Lok Adalat's order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Bihar Land Reforms Act and the Legal Services Authorities Act, emphasizing the limited jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalats and the requirement for cases to be referred to them by the Court or the Legal Services Authority.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ application, quashed the orders related to the land dispute, and directed the Bihar State Legal Services Authority to take prompt action to remove the wrong nomenclature of Permanent Lok Adalats and ensure clarity in their legal status.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsels for the State and private respondent nos. 2 and 3.
2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 16.9.2005 passed in Pre-litigation Case No. 121 of 2005 as also the order dated 4.3.2008 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat, Buxar in Misc. Case No. 3 of 2006.
3. The facts of the case are that the lands under dispute bearing Khata Nos. 108 and 109, plot Nos. 1981 and 1980 having total area 35 ¾ decimals in village Ahirauli, P.S. Buxar (Industries) District-Buxar were sold by respondent no.2 through registered sale deed dated 25.7.2005 for Rs. 77,000/- to respondent no.3. The respondent no. 3 thereafter got the land mutated in his name by order dated 8.8.2005 of the Circle Officer. The petitioner being the boundary raiyat, filed an application under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 on 26.8.2005 claiming pre-emption of the land before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Buxar which was registered as Ceiling Case No. 7/2005-06. The DCLR after issuing notice to the respondent no. 3 and hearing the parties, allowed the case by order dated 22.9.2005 and the respondent no. 3 was directed to execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner with respect to the disputed lands.
4. In the meantime, the respondent no. 2 filed a Pre-litigation Case No. 121/2005 before the so called Permanent Lok Adalat, Buxar on 6.9.2005 against the respondent no.3 for declaration that the sale deed dated 25.7.2005 executed by respondent no. 2 in favour of respondent no.3 is without consideration and, accordingly, the respondent no. 3 has no right and title over the land in dispute. The petitioner was not made party in the said Pre-litigation case nor the pendency of Ceiling Case No. 7/2005-06 was mentioned therein, allegedly in collusive manner in order to defeat the pre-emption case with a mala fide intention. The respondent no. 3 appeared in the matter even without the notice dated 13.9.2005 being received by him, on 16.9.2005 along with an application of compromise and on the same date the compromise petition was moved and accepted by the Lok Adalat and the case was allowed in terms of the compromise decree. The petitioner filed an application in Pre-litigation Case No. 121/2005 stating the concealment of the ceiling case and fraud played upon the Lok Adalat and requested to implead him as party. The application was allowed on 1.3.2006. When the respondents raised objection to the maintainability of the application, the Lok Adalat directed the petitioner to withdraw the application and file a fresh Misc. Case. Accordingly, the application was withdrawn on 10.11.2006 and Misc. Case No. 3/2006 for setting aside the compromise order passed in Pre-litigation Case No. 121/2005 was filed.
5. In the meantime, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 challenged the order of the DCLR passed in Ceiling Case No. 7/2005, by filing Ceiling Appeal No. 145/2005-06, 31/2005-06, 178/2005-06 and 38/2005-06 before the Collector, Buxar. The said appeals were allowed by order dated 12.1.2007 by the Additional Collector holding that since the sale deed dated 25.7.2005 was set aside by the order of the Lok Adalat on the basis of compromise between the parties and the DCLR had accepted the claim of pre-emption on the basis of such sale deed being valid, therefore, only after it is declared as legal by any competent Court any order of pre-emption can be passed in favour of the petitioner. The order of the DCLR was, accordingly, set aside by the Additional Collector, Buxar. Against the order dated 12.1.2007, the petitioner has filed Ceiling Revision before the Divisional Commissioner which is pending. It is further alleged that during the pendency of Miscellaneous Case No. 3/2006, the respondent no. 2 again sold the land to another person, namely, Akhilesh Rai through a registered sale deed dated 7.3.2007.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner subm
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
