AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The instant application has been filed for setting aside the order dated 11.07.2013, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Patna in Lok Adalat Pre Litigation Case No. 55 of 2013 by which joint compromise petition dated 10.07.2013 purported to have been filed on behalf of both the parties, was accepted and case was disposed of with a direction that the joint compromise petition shall form part of the award.
The relevant facts giving rise to the present petition are:-
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had purchased land measuring an area of 1215 sq. ft., situated at Village New Taridih, Bhagalpur, P.S. Bodh Gaya, District Gaya, within Revenue Thana No. 359, bearing Plot Nos. 2907 and 2908, appertaining to Khata No. 11, from Ramswarup Singh and his wife, namely, Smt. Gulab Devi, for a valuable consideration of Rs. 2.99 lakhs, by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 28.01.2010. It is further submitted that, pursuant to the said purchase, the petitioner came in possession of the aforesaid property and has since been continuing in possession thereof as a bona fide purchaser.
It is further submitted that the husband of the petitioner took away the original sale deed from her custody. Thereafter, on 21.03.2013, a partition case was instituted before the D.L.S.A., Aurangabad (Bihar), through the petitioner's brother, namely, Anil Kumar, in respect of certain properties, including the self-acquired property of the petitioner, bearing Pre-Litigation Case No. 55 of 2013. Subsequently, a Vakalatnama was filed on 09.07.2013 and, on the same date, a compromise petition was also filed, which came to be accepted by the Lok Adalat on 11.07.2013, whereupon an award was passed on the same date. It is further submitted that the aforesaid award was obtained by way of compromise with the defendants in the said Pre-Litigation Case, without the knowledge or consent of the petitioner. The petitioner was neither a signatory to the said compromise nor, to her knowledge, was she impleaded as a party in the said proceeding. It is, thus, submitted that the Vakalatnama dated 09.07.2013 and the consequential compromise and award were made without the knowledge or authority of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in Lok Adalat Case No. 55 of 2013, an award dated 10.07.2013 was passed on the basis of a joint compromise petition; however, the same was rendered without jurisdiction and is, therefore, illegal and non est in the eyes of law. It is further submitted that Respondent No. 1 got his name mutated in place of the petitioner without any notice to the petitioner and, thereafter, sold the said property to Respondent No. 5 by way of a registered sale deed dated 27.03.2014, as described in Annexure P/1. It is further submitted that the petitioner filed a petition before the Lok Adalat, Aurangabad, against the respondents, seeking partition of certain lands, including the self-acquired property of the petitioner, on false and baseless allegations.
The plaintiff/petitioner had filed the Title Suit No. 266 of 2014/Title Suit No. 67 of 2014 against her husband, seeking a declaration that the award passed by the Lok Adalat as well as the sale deed dated 27.03.2014 were void ab initio. The aforesaid title suit came to be dismissed on the ground that an award passed by the Lok Adalat cannot be challenged before the Civil Court, as contained in Annexure P/10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has filed Title Appeal No. 24 of 2018 before the learned District Judge, Gaya, which is presently pending before the learned A.D.J. XIII, Gaya.
Learned counsel further submits that the permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to decide the property in dispute even on the basis of compromise and also at a pre-litigation stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment passed in the case of Nawal Kishore Prasad Singh and Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar and ors. (LPA No. 1923 of 2011) decided on 27.11.2013. To buttress his argument, he also placed reliance on the judgment passed in Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No. 538 of 2022 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 25.07.2024. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:-
11.So far as reference of property dispute before the Lok Adalat is concerned, the Learned Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Nawal Kishore Prasad Singh and Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. (LPA No. 1923 of 2011 decided on 27.11.2013), has directed to all Lok Adalats not to entertain the property disputes or the disputes involving contentious issues in Lok Adalats, especially the property disputes. Violation of this direction was to be treated as contempt of this Court.
12.Though the award of the Lok Adalat is dated 26.10.2013 and the orders were passed on 27.11.2023 in Nawal Kishore Prasad Singh (supra), the legal position would not change. In its order, the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nawal Kishore Prasad Singh (supra) has observed as under:
“We regret that although there have been standing instructions not to entertain property disputes in Lok Adalats, the Lok Adalats in the State of Bihar have a tendency to receive property disputes in Lok Adalats and to record compromise that too at a pre-litigation state. In absence of proof of title to the property; of identity of the parties and the genuineness of the claims, no decree for title or partition or possession can be passed. The very stage of providing one’s case is obliterated when one approaches the Lok Adalat”.
13.So in the disputed matters, Lok Adalat cannot enter into and adjudicate the dispute with regard to property, but what would be the position if the parties themselves approached and filed a compromise before the Lok Adalat? In such case, if the parties appear before the Lok Adalat at the pre-litigation stage and make a petition for passing an award on the basis of compromise, even then, the Lok Adalat would not proceed in the matter considering the legal bar created by Nawal Kishore Prasad Singh (supra).
14.Therefore, it could be safely assumed that the bar against entertaining property dispute by the Lok Adalats continues and on this account, passing of the award in partition case filed before it runs counter to the direction issued in the case of Nawal Kishore Prasad Singh (supra).
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that petitioner has challenged the award after 10 years from the date of passing of the award which is time barred.
The above contention of respondent is not tenable because the document/award in question is itself nonest in view of aforesaid judgment of this Hon’ble High Court. So limitation will not apply and accordingly the award is declared nonest and not binding upon the petitioner because it has been passed without jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the present Civil Miscellaneous stands allowed.