JUDGMENT :

The present writ petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 20.12.2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, Permanent Lok Adalat in Misc. case no. 36 of 2007 arising out of Pre-litigation case no. 205 of 2004, whereby and whereunder the miscellaneous case filed by the petitioner to set aside the award dated 11.08.2004 passed in the said Pre-litigation case, has been dismissed with cost.

The petitioner has further prayed for setting aside the award dated 11.08.2004 passed in Pre-litigation case no. 205 of 2004, whereby and whereunder the same has been decreed by the Presiding Officer of Permanent Lok Adalat, Kaimur at Bhabhua in terms of the compromise.

2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner is that the respondent no. 1 namely Saiyad Shahnawaz Alam @ Laddan had filed a Pre-litigation case no. 205 of 2004 on 16.07.2004 before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Kaimur at Bhabhua without impleading the petitioner herein as a defendant and a prayer was made to confirm the right, title and possession over the Scheduled ‘K’ land. In the said petition filed by the respondent no. 1, it had been stated that Late Moinuddin, husband of the respondent no. 2 herein, had died issueless and on account of love and affection, he had orally gifted Schedule ‘K’ property to the respondent no. 1, whereafter the respondent no. 1 had been coming into peaceful possession of the said property. The respondent no. 2 herein had appeared in the said Pre-litigation case and in collusion with the respondent no. 1, had filed a compromise petition on 05.08.2004 with a prayer to confirm the right, title and possession of the Schedule ‘K’ land in favour of the petitioner no. 1, whereafter an award dated 11.08.2004 was prepared in terms of the compromise and the learned Permanent Lok Adalat had declared the right, title and possession of the Schedule ‘K’ property in favour of the respondent no. 1 and accordingly had disposed of the Pre-litigation T.S. no. 205 of 2004. It is the further case of the petitioner that after he came to know of the aforesaid award dated 11.08.2004, he had filed Miscellaneous case no. 36 of 2007 on 02.08.2007 for setting aside the award dated 11.08.2004, however the said miscellaneous case has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 20.12.2010.

3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that both the award dated 11.08.2004 as well as the order dated 20.12.2010 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Kaimur at Bhabhua are illegal and without jurisdiction. It has been further submitted that the Lok Adalat can only resolve dispute in relation to public utility service including such service, which the Central or the State Government may declare, in the public interest, to be public utility services under Section 22-A(b) of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1987). It is submitted that the dispute in question, does not fall within the ambit of the public utility service, as defined under Section 22-A(b) of the Act, 1987. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the order dated 20.12.2010 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Kaimur at Bhabhua is equally misconceived, illegal and erroneous, inasmuch as the miscellaneous case filed by the petitioner herein, has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has failed to state in his miscellaneous petition, as to what kind of fraud was played by the parties in obtaining the award dated 11.08.2004, whereas the fact is that fraud is writ large from the records of the case.

4. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment rendered in the case of Dhirendra Pratap Singh v. Ravi Kant Singh by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court reported in 2014(2) PLJR 619, paragraphs 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 15 and 16 whereof, are reproduced hereinbelow :

“5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that award dated 20.12.2003 passed by ‘Lok Adalat’ on the basis of compromise,