JUDGMENT

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

"(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned judgment and award dated 27.11.2018 (Annexure-7) passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Bikaner in Application No.72/2017 (Ashok Kumar Vs. Man Mohan Dammani & Ors.) may kindly be declared illegal and the same be quashed and set aide with all consequential proceedings.

(ii) any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.

(iii) costs throughout may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioners."

2. Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that the petitioner No.1 is having a land admeasuring 23869.95 sq. feet situated at Mohalla Outside Jassusar Gate, Gajner Road, Bikaner.

3. The aforesaid land was given to respondent No.2, the builder for the purpose of construction of a building complex on it, and in this context, a developer agreement was executed between the parties. The respondent No.2 was to construct a building complex accordingly on the land in question and to sell the flats in question.

4. The respondent No.1 filed an application before the Permanent Lok Adalat for recovery of possession of flat against the petitioners and respondent No.2 alleging that the Sukhsagar Apartment was constructed, in which respondent No.1 booked a flat situated in 'B' Block at third floor of the apartment admeasuring 1160 sq. feet

5. The respondent No.1 booked the flat in question for a consideration Rs.23,20,000/-, and further, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash was to be paid to the respondent No.2, which has been paid. The respondent No.1 paid a sum of Rs.9,28,000/- and the remaining amount to the tune of Rs.14,00,000/- was also paid in cash to the respondent No.2. The respondent No.1 thus claimed to have paid a sum of Rs.24,28,000/- in totality for the flat in question.

6. The possession of the flat was handed over to the respondent No.1 in December, 2015, but since a lot of work was pending in the flat and was not as per the stipulated conditions, therefore, the possession of the flat was returned back to the respondent No.2 for doing the necessary works, but the same remained lacking.

7. The petitioner claimed that the complete formalities, as per the developer agreement, were to be conducted by respondent No.2, and the allegations being made by the respondent No.1 upon the petitioners No.1 and 2 were baseless. The petitioners No.1 and 2 further claimed that the receipts of the amount being paid to them were forged and fabricated. The petitioners also claimed that to escape the liability of Rs.1,04,000/-, in lieu of the generator charges, society charges and service tax, the respondent No.1 was trying to contend that the possession of the flat was with the petitioners.

8. The matter came up before the learned Permanent Lok Adalat and both the parties filed their affidavits and documents, and an award was passed after hearing both the parties on 27.11.2018, which is under challenge.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned award dated 27.11.2018 was illegal, and the forum, which was for the purpose of settlement and conciliation of the dispute, has in fact gone on to adjudicate the dispute on merits, and final reliefs, orders and directions on the merits of the case have been passed, which is contrary to the spirit of the Permanent Lok Adalat.

10. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court at Jaipur Bench in Axis Bank Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Mohit Polytech Pvt. Ltd. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16647/2016 decided on 28.03.2017), relevant portion of which reads as under:-

"The Permanent Lok Adalat seems to be influenced even by the fact that agreement was running in 12 to