The Lok Adalat lacked jurisdiction to entertain property disputes, rendering its Award invalid due to improper consent and unequal distribution of property.

JUDGMENT :

Arun Kumar Jha, J.

The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the Award dated 26.10.2013 passed by the permanent Lok Adalat, Gopalganj in Title Suit No.377 of 2013.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners and the respondents have a common ancestor in Late Paras Pandey. The said Paras Pandey had five daughters, who are petitioner nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and respondent no.3, respectively. The respondent no.2 is the wife of Paras Pandey and respondent no.1 is the son of respondent no.3 and the maternal grandson of Paras Pandey. The property in hand of Paras Pandey came his share as joint family property after the death of his father Vindhyachal Pandey. The four sons of Vindhyachal Pandey partitioned the property and got their possession over their share/land and since then they have been living separately and cultivating their land separately. The said Paras Pandey had five daughters and their marriages were solemnized during the life time of Paras Pandey, who had no sons. So, he kept Sudhir Chaubey, the respondent no.1, son of his eldest daughter Ram Vichari Devi, for looking after him. Paras Pandey died on 07.06.2013 and, after his death, all the daughters claimed their shares and it was decided amongst the family members that an application be filed in the permanent Lok Adalat for distribution of shares amongst the sisters and their family members.

Thereafter, Title Suit No.377/2013 was filed by the respondent no.1 as plaintiff. In the said case, a compromise was arrived at between the parties and shares were prepared for each sister/co-sharer and lands were given in the individual names of sisters after getting their signatures. The documents of compromise was filed before the learned Lok Adalat on 24.10.2013 and on the basis of said compromise, learned permanent Lok Adalat passed its Award on 26.10.2013 which was signed by all the parties. The petitioners seek quashing of this Award by filing the present civil misc. petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the permanent Lok Adalat has no power to enter into any land dispute and it wrongly entertained the case of the respondents and the petitioners. The learned counsel further submitted that even the Award was obtained by the respondents by playing fraud upon the petitioners. The petitioners were not shown the schedules which were prepared for partition of the properties nor the respondent no.1 sought any opinion from the petitioners who were living at their matrimonial places. Thus, the petitioners were kept in dark and the land was not divided equally by the respondent no.1. However, the respondent no.1 told the petitioners that each one has got equal share in their ancestor’s property and took their signatures on blank paper and prepared the compromise deed. The respondent no.1 prepared the schedules wherein Schedule 1 is related to respondent no.1 and the respondent no.1 kept most of the properties himself and Schedules 2 to 5 are with respect to the petitioners who are co-sharers in their vendors property. But even in Schedules 2 to 5, there is no equal distribution/equal division of the share and this was an attempt by the respondent no.1 to make the petitioners quarrel amongst themselves. The learned counsel further submitted that the compromise decree is not valid as it was obtained on the basis of fraud and incorrect facts. The petitioners have assailed the same. The learned counsel further submitted that the Award was passed on26.10.2013, but the petitioners had no knowledge about the same and their impression was that they have been allotted equal shares. Their hopes were dashed on seeing the compromise decree and they were cheated by the respondent no.1. Thus, learned counsel submitted that the Award of the learned permanent Lok Adalat is not sustainable either in law or even on facts and hence, the same be set aside.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing