DHIRENDRA PRATAP SINGH Vs. RAVI KANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) From the pleadings in the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it appears that some misconception prevails with respect to the existence, jurisdiction and functioning of "Permanent Lok Adalats" which are certainly creation, of Chapter-VIA of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), introduced by way of amendment vide Amendment Act No. 37 of 2002 in the Act. The order dated 10.6.2011 said to have been passed by "Permanent Lok Adalat" Kaimur at Bhabhua in Miscellaneous Case No. 6 of 2004, whereby it has set aside the award dated 20.12.2003 passed by Lok Adalat Camp Kaimur at Bhabhua is under challenge in the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents No. 1 and 2. Facts are not much in dispute and are based on record. A Title Suit No. 283 of 2003 was filed by the petitioner in the Court of Sub-Judge-1st, Bhabhua for declaration of his title over schedule "Ka" of the land as described in the plaint. During the pendency of the suit, the parties agreed to settle their disputes through compromise. Accordingly, a joint compromise petition was filed by them on 29.9.2003 in the said Title Suit No. 283 of 2003 which has been brought on record as Annexure-2. In view of the compromise petition, the trial Court, noticing chances of settlement of dispute through compromise, referred the matter to 'Lok Adalat'. The 'Lok Adalat' on the basis of such compromise disposed of the matter and prepared an award on 20.12.2003 which is Annexure-3 to the present application.

(3.) It is alleged in the present application that Respondent No. 2, though not a party in Title Suit No. 283 of 2003 filed the Miscellaneous Case No. 6 of 2004 in "Permanent Lok Adalat" for setting aside the award dated 20.12.2003 on the ground that he was the adopted son of late Sheo Bhajan Singh, husband of Respondent No. 3, in the present application. Respondent No. 3 was defendant in Title Suit No. 283 of 2003. She is said to have contended before the "Permanent Lok Adalat" that any concession made by her in favour of the petitioner was void and fraudulent. "Permanent Lok Adalat" is said to have issued notice to the petitioner to which the petitioner replied, supporting the award passed by the 'Lok Adalat' on the basis of comprise (sic--compromise?). The said "Permanent Lok Adalat", Kaimur at Bhabhua, thereafter, is said to have considered the rival contentions and after conducting full-fledged trial and after assessing oral as well as documentary evidence on record, passed the impugned order dated 10.6.2011, setting aside the earlier award passed by 'Lok Adalat' dated 20.12.2003.