Jharkhand High Court
Nand Kishor Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 November, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2025:JHHC:34519-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 98 of 2025
Nand Kishor Singh, S/o Late Kunj Bihari Singh, R/o Village-Bhadauli,
PO & PS-Sisai, District-Gumla ... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land
Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Gumla
4. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Gumla
5. The Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highway,
Government of India, New Delhi
6. The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India,
having its regional office at B-402, Road No. 4, Ashok Nagar,
Ranchi
7. Ramdhari Singh, S/o Late Laxmi Nath Singh, R/o Village-
Bhadauli, PO & PS-Sisai, District-Gumla ... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
For the Appellant : Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : Mr. Piyush Chitresh, AC to AG
For the Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Pandey, CGC
For the Respondent No. 6 : Mrs. Sweety Topno, Advocate
Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, Advocate
For the Respondent No. 7 : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate
-----
Order No. 03 Dated: 19.11.2025
The appellant was the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.
5372 of 2024, who had approached the Court seeking a direction
upon the official respondents to disburse the compensation awarded
under the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as
"the Act, 1956") exclusive to him in terms of the Award made by the
"Permanent Lok Adalat". The respondent no. 7-Ramdhari Singh, who
was contesting the case, was the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 5179
of 2024 who too had laid claim to the amount what was excluded
from claiming any amount on the basis of the so-called award passed
by the "Permanent Lok Adalat".
2. The brief facts, which gave rise to both these litigations,
2025:JHHC:34519-DB
were that the appellant had filed an application against the
respondent no. 7 [the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 5179 of 2024] before
the Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat under Section 22-C of the Legal
Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act,
1987") at Gumla for settlement of dispute regarding payment of
compensation amount awarded in connection with widening of
NH-23, whereby the NHAI acquired the land of both the writ
petitioners, who were co-sharers and awarded the compensation in
the name of Nand Kishor Singh as well as other co-sharers and the
respondent no. 7 - Ramdhari Singh wanted to receive the said
awarded compensation amount, whereas his father had received no
share in partition and, therefore, he preferred an application before
the "Permanent Lok Adalat". The respondent no. 7 raised a
contention that the award was passed by the Chairman, "Permanent
Lok Adalat" beyond its jurisdiction as the value of the property in
question for which compensation had been awarded, was more than
Rupees Ten lakhs. This contention found favour with the learned Writ
Court and the learned Writ Court after taking into consideration the
provisions contained in Section 3-H of the Act, 1956 directed the
parties to the dispute to approach the competent authority who, in
turn, was directed to determine the lis and apportion the same.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended
that the judgment passed by the learned Writ Court is absolutely
erroneous inasmuch as the jurisdiction of the "Permanent Lok Adalat"
at the time of adjudication of the dispute had been enhanced from
Rupees Ten lakhs to Rupees one crore and, therefore, it had
2025:JHHC:34519-DB
jurisdiction to pass the award and thus, the entire amount ought to
have been awarded to the appellant.
4. However, we find no force in such contention for the simple
reason that the "Permanent Lok Adalat" has been established under
sub-section (1) of Section 22-B of the Act, 1987 for exercising such
jurisdiction in respect of one or more public utility services that find
mention in Section 22-A of the said Act as is evident from bare
reading of Section 22-A and 22-B of the Act, 1987, which read as
under:
22-A. Definitions. - In this Chapter and for the
purposes of sections 22 and 23, unless the context
otherwise requires, -
(a) "Permanent Lok Adalat" means a
Permanent Lok Adalat established under sub-section
(1) of Section 22-B;
(b) "public utility service" means any-
(i) transport service for the carriage of
passengers or goods by air, road or water; or
(ii) postal, telegraph or telephone service; or
(iii) supply of power, light or water to the
public by any establishment; or
(iv) system of public conservancy or sanitation; or
(v) service in hospital or dispensary; or
(vi) insurance service,
and includes any service which the Central
Government or the State Government, as the case
may be, may, in the public interest, by notification,
declare to be a public utility service for the purposes
of this Chapter.
22-B.Establishment or Permanent Lok Adalats-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in
Section 19, the Central Authority or, as the case may
2025:JHHC:34519-DB
be, every State Authority shall, by notification,
establish Permanent Lok Adalats at such places and
for exercising such jurisdiction in respect of one or
more public utility services and for such areas as may
be specified in the notification.
(2) Every Permanent Lok Adalat established for
an area notified under sub-section (1) shall consist
of-
(a) a person who is, or has been, a District
Judge or Additional District Judge or has held judicial
office higher in rank than that of a District Judge,
shall be the Chairman of the Permanent Lok Adalat;
and
(b) two other persons having adequate
experience in public utility service to be nominated by
the Central Government or, as the case may be, the
State Government on the recommendation of the
Central Authority or, as the case may be, the State
Authority,
appointed by the Central Authority or, as the case
may be, the State Authority, establishing such
Permanent Lok Adalat and the other terms and
conditions of the appointment of the Chairman and
other persons referred to in clause (b) shall be such
as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
5. In view of the aforesaid provisions, the dispute raised by the
appellant herein does not fall within the definition of "public utility
service" and therefore, the "Permanent Lok Adalat" was not vested
with any jurisdiction to take cognizance of such cases under Section
22-C of the Act, 1987. Therefore, clearly the order passed by the
"Permanent Lok Adalat" is quorum non-judice and, therefore, nullity
in the eyes of law.
2025:JHHC:34519-DB
6. As regards the direction passed by learned Writ Court
relegating the parties to the competent authority, we only need to
clarify that the "competent authority", as defined in Section 3(a) of
the Act, 1956 in this case, is the District Land Acquisition Officer,
Gumla. Since there is a dispute with regard to the apportionment of
compensation, the competent authority, on receipt on an application
by either of the parties i.e., the appellant or the respondent no. 7, as
the case may be, shall refer the dispute to the decision of a Principal
Civil Court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose
jurisdiction the land is situated i.e., Gumla.
7. With this modification in paragraph- 13 of the order dated
06.12.2024 passed by the learned Writ Court in W.P.(C) No. 5179 of
2024 and W.P.(C) No. 5372 of 2024, the instant appeal is accordingly
disposed of.
8. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
November 19, 2025
Manish/Ritesh/AFR
Uploaded on 21.11.2025
