The single judge bench of Justice Sandeep Kumar of the Patna High Court in the case of Lallan Pandey vs. the state of Bihar held that a Court/Authority having no jurisdiction in the matter cannot be conferred jurisdiction by the parties with their consent and the order passed by the said Court/Authority having no jurisdiction over the subject matter is a nullity in the eye of law
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 decided to partition the property into two equal parts. Given this, Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 filed the Partition suit before the Permanent Lok Adalat. The settlement was executed between both the parties and Petitioner no. 2 (son of Petitioner no. 1) signed the compromise Petition.
Thereafter, Petitioner No. 2 was diagnosed with a kidney ailment and for his treatment, Petitioner No. 1 decided to sell a part of his property. However, it was objected by respondent No. 1 that he couldn’t sell his half share of the property as his share is less. Later on, Petition got to know that respondent no. 2 committed fraud and the Petitioner was granted only 1/4th of the property. Thereafter, the Petitioner approached this court.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner contended that the award passed by the permanent lok adalat is without jurisdiction. It was furthermore contended that the Permanent lok adalat can only resolve disputes in relation to Public Utility Services including such service, which the Central or the State Government may declare in the public interest to be public utility services under the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner relied upon the judgments titled Dhirendra Pratap Singh v. Ravi Kant Singh, and Krishna Murari Tiwari vs. Ram Krit Tiwari & Ors.
Contentions of the State:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state contended that the Petitioner cannot claim that the award is illegal as no fraud was committed and the Petitioner has signed the compromise deed.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court agreed with the submission made by the Petitioner that Even if the petitioners are said to have signed the compromise deed, the Permanent Lok Adalat's decision must be quashed because the Permanent Lok Adalat is only authorized to settle disputes involving public utility services, including those that the Central or State Government may declare to be such under the terms of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
It was furthermore observed that the subject matter of the present suit doesn’t come under any of the public utility services.
It was noted that the parties cannot confer jurisdiction on a court or authority that lacks jurisdiction over the matter with their consent, and any order made by a court or authority that lacks jurisdiction over the issue is legally void.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that the award passed by the permanent lok Adalat lacks jurisdiction.
The decision of the court:
With the above direction, the court allowed the application.
Case Title: Lallan Pandey vs. the state of Bihar
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar
Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13738 of 2019
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Chandra Kant, Advocate
Advocates for the State: Mr. S. K. Mandal, S.C.-3 Mr. Bipin Kumar, A.C. to S.C.-3
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Dharmendra Choubey, Advocate Mr. Umesh Narayan Dubey, Advocate
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
