Sandeep Kumar, J. – This application has been filed for setting aside the award dated 27.09.2005 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Rohtas at Sasaram, in Partition Suit No. 502 of 2005, by which the suit property has been partitioned between the petitioners and the private respondents on the basis of a compromise petition entered between the parties.

2. The case of the petitioners is that petitioner no.1 is a practicing lawyer based in Patna and most of time he used to stay in Patna. The petitioner no.2 is the only son of petitioner no.1. The brother of the petitioner no.1 i.e. respondent no.2 decided to partition their property in half-half share as they both were full brothers and the property was to be divided between them only. In view of the aforesaid decision of partition, the petitioner no.1 along with respondent no.2 filed Partition Suit No.502 of 2005 in Permanent Lok Adalat for partition. As there was a settlement between the parties, the petitioner no.2 and his son i.e. petitioner no.2 were called by the respondent no.2 in the Civil Court at Rohtas and it was represented to them that the compromise petition has been prepared dividing the ancestral property into half-half share and accordingly, the petitioners signed the compromise petition.

3. After the compromise, the petitioners started cultivating their half share of the agricultural property but all of a sudden, in the year 2011 the petitioner no.2 was diagnosed with kidney ailment and for his treatment, the petitioner no.1 wanted to sell a part of his share of property. The petitioner no.1 took an advance of Rs.2,00,000/- from one purchaser but it was objected by the respondent no.2 by saying that he could not sell his half share of property as his share is less. Thereafter, the petitioner no.1 applied for the certified copy of the award of the Permanent Lok Adalat and came to know that respondent no.2 had played fraud upon the petitioners and in the schedule which were prepared, the petitioners were granted one fourth share of the property though the petitioners were entitled to half share of the property. Realizing this fraud, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat is illegal and without jurisdiction. He further submits that even if the petitioners are said to have signed the compromise petition but still the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat is illegal and without jurisdiction as the Permanent Lok Adalat can only resolve disputes in relation to Public Utility Services including such service, which the Central or the State Government may declare in the public interest to be public utility services under the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a decision of the this Court rendered in the case of Dhirendra Pratap Singh vs. Ravi Kant Singh reported in 2014(2) PLJR 619 and a judgment dated 01.09.2023 passed by this Court in Civil Miscellaneous No.876 of 2018 (Krishna Murari Tiwari vs. Ram Krit Tiwari & Ors.).

6. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 6 has supported the award of the Permanent Lok Adalat and has submitted that no fraud was committed in the partition of the ancestral property and the compromise deed was signed by the petitioners and therefore, now they cannot claim that the award is illegal.

7. I have considered the submissions of the petitioner and perused the materials on record.

8. This Court find force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that even if the petitioners are said to have signed the compromise petition but still the award of the Permanent Lok Adalat has to be quashed in view of the fact that Permanent Lok Adalat can only resolve dispute in relation to public utility services including such service, which the Central or the State Government may declare in the public i