Kishore Kumar Mandal, J. – The writ application raises a legal question having broad ramifications on the working of the Lok Adalats in the State of Bihar constituted under Legal Services Authority Act, 1987.

2. The petitioners are four sons of Bindeshwari Rai whereas respondent no. 2 is the 5th son of Bindeshwari Rai. Respondent no. 1 is the wife of respondent no. 2. The writ application asserts that Bindeshwari Rai was ‘Karta’ and Manager of the joint family consisting of himself and his successors (sons) till his death. During his life time, he had purchased different properties one of them being 4 Kathas of land situated at Mauja Jadhua Pokhra, Hajipur in the district of Vaishali. Such acquisition was made by Bindeshwari Rai through a registered sale deed dated 30.1.1973. After purchasing the land, ‘khapra posh’ house was constructed in which the joint family lived. Respondent no. 1 filed a pre-litigation case before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Hajipur vide Pre-litigation Case No. 97 of 2006 for passing a decree that the purchaser of sale deed dated 30.1.1973 i.e. Bindeshwari Rai was only benamidar of the applicant and the title of the applicant thereon be declared and she be declared as the real owner. The applicant (father of the writ petitioners and respondent no. 2) was only impleaded as defendant/opposite party in the said proceeding. The Presiding Officer of the Permanent Lok Adalat by order dated 24.3.2006 directed for registration of the case and later by order dated 31.3.2006 admitted the case and issued summons fixing 7.4.2006 for hearing. On 7.4.2006, a compromise is said to have been filed by both the parties of the proceeding which the Lok Adalat accepted and passed the decree/award declaring the father-in-law of the applicant as the benamidar and the applicant the real owner of the land covered by the sale deed. In some other proceeding relating to the subject land, it was revealed to the writ petitioners in 2010 that a decree/award was so passed by the Lok Adalat whereafter the present writ petition has been filed for passing an appropriate order/direction writ/writs to quash the award of the Lok Adalat dated 7.4.2006.

3. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents.

4. Heard Mr. Jashawir Singh Arora for the petitioners and Mr. Hemendra Prasad Singh for the respondents.

5. Writ petitioners have challenged the legality of the award/decree passed by the Lok Adalat on several grounds. He would argue that after coming into force of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Benami Act’), no such proceeding can be filed, maintained and allowed by any Court. He referred in particular to Section 4(1) of the Benami Act. It is a case where a fraud has been committed on the Court (Lok Adalat) by getting an award/decree of such a nature which is prohibited by law. The Lok Adalat completely failed to appreciate the same and merely on the basis of collusive agreement/compromise, disposed of the proceeding. The award/decree of the Lok Adalat is a nullity in the eye of law and once the same is brought to the notice of the Court, the power of superintendence vested in the Court should be exercised to keep the Courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction which will restore the confidence of the people in the proceedings of the Court.

6. In contra, the senior counsel for the respondent while supporting the decree/award passed by the Lok Adalat urged that the same need not be interfered with by this Court on the proposition that an award/decree of the Court/Lok Adalat binds only the party thereto. The writ petitioners are not parties to the proceeding before the Lok Adalat. If they are aggrieved thereby, they may file a suit for setting aside the award/decree of the permanent Lok Adalat. He has relied on Radhe Shyam vs. Chhabi Nath (2015) 5 SCC 423 and also on an unreported judgment of this Court.

7. From the rival pleadings, it is more than evident that Bindeshwari Rai had five sons. During