ADITYA NARAYAN THAKUR Vs. PRASANT THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Ankit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Shahid Yunus, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Suraj Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.3.

(2.) This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying therein to quash the award dtd. 27/8/2010 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat, Deoghar in P.L.A. Case No.42/2010 (Kartik Nath Thakur vrs. Rameshwar Thakur & Ors.). The further prayer is made to declare the award dtd. 27/8/2010 void, nullity in the eyes of law and not binding against the petitioners as it is fraudulently and collusively executed between the parties to debar the petitioners from their ancestor properties.

(3.) Mr. Ankit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the land and properties appertaining to Jamabandi No.7 of Mouza Amarwa, Thana No.530 within Police Station Mohanpur, Sub-Division and DistrictDeoghar along with Jamabandi No.8, Mouza Agiya, Thana No.527, within Police Station Mohanpur, Sub-Division and District- Deoghar are the subject matter for the present petition. He further submits that the said properties are ancestor, non-transferrable raiyati Jamabandi lands of the petitioners and opposite parties recorded in the name of their ancestors, namely, Jagat Chandra Thakur during last Gentzer Survey Settlement and subsequently his son Rajanikant Thakur and further his son Shambhunath Thakur inherited the properties and after the death of Shambhunath Thakur, the opposite party nos. 1 to 3 being the son of Shambhunath Thakur inherited the joint ancestral properties and the petitioners are the sons of opposite party no.3. He also submits that the petitioners are co-parcener in the joint Hindu family and the aforesaid land and property belongs to the joint property among them. He then submits that the petitioners were working in a private company in different cities and, therefore, they were residing outside Deoghar. He further submits that opposite party nos. 1 and 2 suppressed and concealed the fact and fraudulently misrepresented opposite party no.3 about the compromise and family arrangement of the properties and received his signature over the document on the pretext of ongoing Survey Settlement proceeding. He then submits that there was no dispute between opposite party nos. 1, 2 and 3; neither in the civil court nor in revenue court and the said compromise was made in the pre-litigation stage itself before the Permanent Lok Adalat. He also submits that opposite party no.3 being an old aged person aged about 73 years then fraudulently induced by other opposite parties to put his signature over the said document. He submits that the Permanent Lok Adalat, Deoghar by considering the said document in its prelitigative stage and registered the same as P.L.A. Case No.42/2010 and disposed of the matter by Award dtd. 27/8/2010. He submits that when this fact has come to the knowledge of the petitioners, they have filed the present C.M.P. He also submits that in light of the definition made under Sec. 22-A of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act, 1987") only public utility service can be subject matter before the Permanent Lok Adalat and such type of litigation cannot be the subject matter in the Permanent Lok Adalat. On these grounds, he submits that the impugned award may kindly be quashed.