Parties not involved in Lok Adalat proceedings can challenge the award in High Court under Article 227, especially if their rights are adversely affected.

JUDGMENT :

Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 24.02.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2395 of 2009, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed with an observation that it would be open for the appellant to seek appropriate relief by filing a Title suit.

3. The records reveal that a Title suit was filed by respondent No. 6 in which the appellant was not impleaded, though he was a necessary party; but respondent No. 13 was impleaded. The matter was referred to the Lok Adalat, where on the basis of a compromise, an award was passed, which substantially and directly affected the title of the appellant.

4. The background facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the property in question, which the appellant claims to be his ancestral property, was purchased some times in the year 1924 by a registered sale-deed. Over a period of time, the names of the ancestors of the appellant and of him was mutated and recorded in the Revenue records. According to the appellant, an attempt was made in the past, during survey operations, by respondent No. 6 to have the name of the appellant expunged, but such efforts were foiled by the order of the Deputy Director, Consolidation, some times in the year 2008. This lent finality to the matter and the name of the appellant remained on the records with the title of the appellant remaining undisturbed.

5. Thereafter, a Title suit was filed in the year 2002 vide Title Suit No. 454 of 2002, in which a compromise was collusively obtained before the Lok Adalat on 30th of August, 2003. The appellant was never made party to the said suit nor did he have any notice or information about the same. It was only on the basis of the afore-noted consent decree that respondent Nos. 6 and 13 started asserting their rights. No sooner, the appellant came to learn about it, a writ petition vide C.W.J.C. No. 2395 of 2009 was filed for setting aside the award of the Lok Adalat.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that Lok Adalat had only approved the compromise decree by the Trial Court and, therefore, it may not be taken as an award of the Lok Adalat; rather a decree of the Civil Court and in that event, the appellant has a forum of preferring a Title suit for vindication of his rights.

7. Though Mr. Choubey, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant wanted this Court to get into the merits of the case, but we, on the perusal of the provision contained in Section 22E (4) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (in short the Act of 1987), are of the view that relegating the appellant in this circumstance to the Civil Courts by the learned Single Judge was not appropriate.

8. Section 22E of the Act of 1987 reads as follows :-

22E. Award of Permanent Lok Adalat to be final.-(1) Every award of the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act made either on merit or in terms of a settlement agreement shall be final and binding on all the parties thereto and on persons claiming under them.

(2) Every award of the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court.

(3) The award made by the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act shall be by a majority of the persons constituting the Permanent Lok Adalat.

(4) Every award made by the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act shall be final and shall not be called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceeding.

(emphasis supplied)

(5) The Permanent Lok Adalat may transmit any