SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Jhk) 877

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Deepak Roshan, J.
Ramdhari Singh son of Late Laxminath Singh - Petitioner
Vs.
Nand Kishore Singh son of Late Kunj Bihari Singh - Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 5179 of 2024 With W.P. (C) No. 5372 of 2024
Decided On : 06-12-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv., Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Adv., Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv.
For the Resp.-NHAI : Mrs. Sweety Topno, Adv., Mr. Amit Raj Kisku, Adv.

The Permanent Lok Adalat lacks jurisdiction over disputes involving compensation exceeding ten lakh rupees, necessitating adjudication under the National Highways Act.

Headnote:(A) Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 22C - Jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat - The award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat was challenged on grounds of jurisdiction due to the compensation amount exceeding the prescribed limit of ten lakh rupees. The court found that the Permanent Lok Adalat acted beyond its jurisdiction as the awarded amount was Rs.25,20,208/-. (Paras 6, 10)

(B) National Highways Act, 1956 - Section 3H - Disputes regarding compensation for land acquisition under the National Highways Act must be adjudicated by the competent authority or civil court. The court directed that future disputes regarding apportionment of award should follow the provisions of the National Highways Act. (Paras 11, 12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner in W.P.

(C) No.5372 of 2024 sought compensation for land acquired for highway widening, while the petitioner in W.P.

(C) No.5179 of 2024 challenged the award's jurisdiction.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the Permanent Lok Adalat's award was beyond jurisdiction and quashed it.

Issues: The main issue was whether the Permanent Lok Adalat had jurisdiction over the compensation amount exceeding ten lakh rupees.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Permanent Lok Adalat lacked jurisdiction as the compensation exceeded the statutory limit, and disputes should be resolved under the National Highways Act.

Result: W.P.

(C) No.5179 of 2024 allowed; W.P.

(C) No.5372 of 2024 dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Since both these writ applications arise out of a common award dated 31.07.2024 passed by the Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat, Gumla in PLA Case No.123/2023; as such, both were heard together and being disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioner of W.P.(C) No.5179 of 2024 has challenged the aforesaid award on the ground that the same is without jurisdiction. On the contrary, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5372 of 2024 has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities as to why the compensation amount of Rs.57,02,871/-which has been awarded by the Permanent Lok Adalat has not been paid to him.

3. The brief facts which gave rise to both these litigations is that the petitioner of W.P.(C) No.5372 of 2024 - Nand Kishor Singh, had filed an application against the petitioner namely, Ramdhari Singh [petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5179 of 2024] before the Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat under Section 22C of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 at Gumla, for settlement of dispute regarding payment of compensation amount in connection with widening of National Highway, Road No.23, whereby NHAI acquired the land of both the petitioners, who were co-sharers and awarded the compensation in the name of Nand Kishor Singh and other co-sharer and the petitioner-Ramdhari Singh wanted to receive the said awarded compensation amount whereas, his father Laxmi Kant Singh had no share in partition. Hence, an application before the Permanent Lok Adalat was preferred by Nand Kishor Singh being PLA Case No.123/2023.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5179 of 2024 is that the Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat, Gumla had signed the Award beyond jurisdiction, inasmuch as, the value of the property in question for which compensation has been awarded, is more than Rupees Ten lakhs.

5. Thus the only issue involved in both these writ applications is as:

    Whether the Award passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat is without jurisdiction or not ?

To decide the issue, it is necessary to scrutinize Section 22C of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 which deals with the cognizance of cases by Permanent Lok Adalat. For brevity, the same is quoted hereinbelow:

    “22-C. Cognizance of cases by Permanent Lok Adalat . – (1) Any party to a dispute may, before the dispute is brought before any Court, make an application to the Permanent Lok Adalat for the settlement of dispute:

    Provided that the Permanent Lok Adalat shall not have jurisdiction in respect of any matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law:

    Provided further that the Permanent Lok Adalat shall also not have jurisdiction in the matter where the value of the property in dispute exceeds ten lakh rupees;

    Provided also that the Central Government, may, by notification, increase the limit of *ten lakh rupees specified in the second proviso in consultation with the Central Authority.

    (2) After an application is made under sub-section (1) to the Permanent Lok Adalat, no party to that application shall invoke jurisdiction of any Court in the same dispute.

    (3) Where an application is made to a Permanent Lok Adalat under sub- section (1), it-

    (a) shall direct each party to the application to file before it a written statement, stating therein the facts and nature of dispute under the application, points or issues in such dispute and grounds relied in support of, or in opposition to, such points or issues, as the case may be, and such party may supplement such statement with any document and other evidence which such party deems appropriate in proof of such facts and grounds and shall send a copy of such statement together with a copy of such document and other evidence, if any, to each of the parties to the application;

    (b) may require any party to the application to file additional statement before it at any stage of the conciliation proceedings;

    (c) shall communicate any document or statement received by it from any party to the application to the other party, to en

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top