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
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:
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:
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
The Permanent Lok Adalat lacks jurisdiction over disputes involving compensation exceeding ten lakh rupees, necessitating adjudication under the National Highways Act.
Permanent Lok Adalat has jurisdiction to adjudicate compensation claims under the Motor Vehicles Act after conciliation efforts fail, affirming its authority and established processes.
Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction in the matters of appointment of guardian of a minor as it involves the determination of the welfare of the minor with the proposed guardian, keeping in view various fa....
Once there is no compromise and/or a settlement between parties before Lok Adalat, matter has to be returned to Court from where matter was referred to Lok Adalat for deciding the matter on merits by....
Discrimination in compensation assessment can justify interference with Lok Adalat decisions, ensuring equitable treatment for similarly situated landowners.
The Permanent Lok Adalat lacks jurisdiction over property disputes not involving public utility services, and awards obtained through fraud are void.
The court established that a valid reference to Lok Adalat is mandatory for its jurisdiction, and failure to comply with this requirement invalidates any award made.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.