An application to the Permanent Lok Adalat could only be made before the dispute is brought before any Court, and the proceedings before the Permanent Lok Adalat were fundamentally incompetent.

2. The petitioner-appellant submitted an application (Annexure 1) under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (“the Act” hereafter) on 112.2004 before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Udaipur with the averments that he made an application for allotment of a plot in Daitya Magri Scheme of the UIT on 312.1971; that because of the ban imposed by the Government, the allotment process was kept in abeyance till the year 1980; that 2,500/-sq.ft. of land was allotted to him; that he deposited Rs. 7,390/-on 14.05.1982 and further deposited the amount of penalty of Rs. 3,118.60/-on 110.1982 and sought possession of the allotted land. According to the petitioner, an employee of the UIT reported on 15.01.1983 that the allotted Plot No. 24-B was not available at site and thereafter the petitioner sought allotment of alternative piece of land and thereupon he was allotted 1800 sq.ft. of land in Plot No. 13 of Moti Magri Scheme. The petitioner contended that he had deposited amount with penalty towards allotment of 2500 sq.ft. of land and it was the responsibility of the UIT to allot him 2500 sq.ft. of land but the remaining 700 sq.ft. of land was not allotted to him.

3. The petitioner raised the grievance that in the year 1999 the non-applicant-UIT proposed to make payment of 700 sq.ft. of land @ Rs. 3.15 per sq.ft. The petitioner stated that for 22 years, he had visited the office of UIT several times and addressed various communications and gave out the dates of such communications from 312.1971 to 03.06.2000. In Paragraph 7 to 11 of the application, the petitioner made the prayers in the manner that Rs. 5,60,000/-towards cost of 700 sq.ft. of land at the present market rate be paid to him; that he may be allotted any other plot of equal value; that for the agony suffered by him Rs. 15,000/-be awarded as damages; that the negligence of the authorities be determined and the amount of damages be recovered from their salary. In relation to the maintainability of the application and jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat, the petitioner averred that in view of the amendment to the Act of 1987, application could be maintained against the State, therefore, the Lok Adalat has jurisdiction to entertain the application and the cause of action has arisen within its territorial jurisdiction.

4. The non-applicant Urban Improvement Trust, in its preliminary objections (Annexure 2) pointed out that the petitioner has earlier raised this dispute in the same Court in Case No. 318/2001 that was rejected on 14.02.2003; and contended that the petitioner has raised the same dispute after 22 months without any justification. It was also contended that the petitioner has concealed these facts and filed the fresh application that was not maintainable. It was also submitted that the dispute sought to be raised does not come within the purview of the Lok Adalat; that the petitioner has already obtained the land and raised construction; and that the non-applicant-UIT was prepared to make payment towards the difference of the area of land and the petitioner has already been informed of the same.

5. The learned Permanent Lok Adalat seems to have taken up the matter for conciliation and failing the settlement, by the impugned order dated 19.02.2005 (Annexure.3), dropped the proceedings leaving the parties free to take recourse to appropriate remedy.

6. In the writ petition submitted to this Court, the petitioner contended that the action on the part of the non-petitioner-UIT being wholly illegal and arbitrary, he had approached the Lok Adalat bona fide and the Lok Adalat was not justified in not deciding the issue leaving the parties to choose appropriate remedy.

7. It appears from the record of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2747/2005 that the learned Single Judge on 24.08.2005 directed the petitioner to produce the terms of allotment of Plot No. 13. However, no such terms of allotment pertaining to Plot No. 13 seem to have been put on record. Be that as