IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that the Permanent Lok Adalat has jurisdiction only in matters related to public utility services as defined under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. No one appears for the respondents despite notices having been validly served.

3. In this case, the petitioner is challenging the award dated 03.04.2008 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat, Kaimur at Bhabhua, in Title Suit No.72 of 2008, by which the suit property has been partitioned among the parties on the basis of a compromise petition.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that late Bachai Tiwari has seven sons, out of which, Patru Tiwari died issueless prior to filing of the suit. Sheo Janam Tiwari died issueless. The petitioner is the son of first wife of Sheo Murat Tiwari and pursuant to khangi partition / oral partition which took place in 1980 among the sons of late Bachai Tiwari, a piece of land fell in the share of Sheo Janam Tiwari, who being pleased with the services of the petitioner, executed registered gift deed bearing no.5409 dated 24.05.1982 in favour of the petitioner with respect to Khata no.118, 112, 71 & 65 measuring an area of 1 acre 72½ decimal.

5. According to the petitioner, subsequently in the year 2008, a Title Partition Suit was filed bearing T.S. No.72 of 2008 by the respondents. On their request, record of the Suit was sent to the Permanent Lok Adalat of Kaimur at Bhabua. On 06.02.2008 a compromise petition was filed duly signed by both the parties before the Permanent Lok Adalat, in which the name of the petitioner was mentioned but subsequently the same was deleted by the parties although the gifted land by Sheo Janam Tiwari was mentioned in the schedule. On the basis of the said compromise petition, the award was passed on 03.04.2008 although Sheo Janam Tiwari never put his thumb impression on the compromise petition, thereby the gifted land was allotted to other person.

6. It is also the case of the petitioner that after obtaining the award, he filed a Miscellaneous Case No.02 of 2008 for setting aside the award dated 03.04.2008 passed in Title Suit No.72 of 2008 but the same was withdrawn by the petitioner.

7. According to the petitioner, the award has been obtained by committing fraud and misrepresentation by excluding Sheo Janam Tiwari, who has executed registered gift deed in favour of the petitioner with respect to Khata No.118, 112, 71 and 65 measuring an area of 1 acre 72½ decimal of land and the said land has been included in the award of the Permanent Lok Adalat fraudulently.

8. It is the contention of the petitioner that the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat is illegal and without jurisdiction as 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 the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

9. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon a decision of the this Court rendered in the case of Dhirendra Pratap Singh v. Ravi Kant Singh reported in 2014(2) PLJR 619 and an unreported judgment dated 12.09.2019 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.20 of 2016 (Nizamuddin @ Saiyad Nizamuddin vs. Saiyad Shahnawaz Alam @ Laddan & Ors.).

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

11. It is an admitted position that respondents have not appeared in the matter despite service of notice and have also not denied the averments made in the writ petition. After going through the records, it appears that the land belonging to the petitioner has been included in the suit but he was not noticed and he has also not signed the alleged compromise petition filed in the Permanent Lok Adalat, which has resulted in passing of the award in Permanent Lok Adalat.

12. The issue whether Permanent Lok Adalat has jurisdiction to either entertain or deal with any dispute other than those provided under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 has been decided in the case of Dhirendra Pratap Singh v. Ravi Kant Singh (supra).