Patna High Court
Indu Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 1 February, 2024
Author: Sandeep Kumar
Bench: Sandeep Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9577 of 2021
======================================================
Indu Devi Wife of Shri Amresh Kumar Singh Resident of Mohalla
Sanchipatti, Ward No.08, Hajipur, District- Vaishali, Pin- 844101.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Collector, Vaishali.
2. The Presiding Officer, Pramandal Lok Adalat Vaishali at Hajipur.
3. The Secretary, Legal Services Authorities Vaishali at Hajipur.
4. Smt. Lila Devi Wife of Late Gopal Sharma
5. Most. Minta Devi D/o Late Gopal Sharma and Wife of Mr. Amresh Sharma
Both are Resident of Mohalla and P.O. Jadhuabag (Tole) P.S. Town
Hajipur, District- Vaishali.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ratan Kumar Sinha
For the Respondent/s : Mr. AG
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 01-02-2024
The present application has been filed for quashing the
order dated 20.08.2013 and award pursuant to the same by the
Permanent Lok Adalat, Vaishali at Hajipur in Pre-litigation Suit
No. 160 of 2013.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Respondent no. 4 filed a Pre-litigation case before Lok Adalat
Vaishali at Hajipur under section 22(i)(ii) of the Legal Services
Authority Act 1987 and the said case was registered as partition
Suit No. 160/2013 on 14.06.2013 without impleading the
petitioner who is the one of the daughter of Respondent no.4.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9577 of 2021 dt.01-02-2024
4. It is further submitted that the petition is not
maintainable because Section 22(i)(ii) of the Act which did not
give power to the Lok Adalat to entertain a direct application for
its disposal.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
on 14.06.2013, a petition for compromise was filed by the
Respondent no.5 without issuing any notice by the Lok Adalat
and in the said petition, she has stated at paragraph No. 4,7 and
8 that the petitioner is one of the daughters and her share is also
in the property.
6. He also submits that vide order dated 20.08.2013, the
permanent Lok Adalat passed the order holding that the suit is
decreed in the terms of compromise and also passed an award in
favour of Respondent no. 4/plaintiff and Respondent no.5
/defendant.
7. The case of the Respondent No. 4 as per the counter
affidavit is that the respondent no.-4 having only two female
children; one namely Indu Devi @ Bindu Devi aged about 46
years, wife of Shankar Sharma, resident of village-Saidpur
Rajauli, P.O. + P.S. Hajipur Sadar, District-Vaishali and second
is respondent no.-5 namely Smt. Mintu Devi wife of Mr.
Amresh Sharma resident of mohalla- Bagtola Jadhua, P.S.-
Patna High Court CWJC No.9577 of 2021 dt.01-02-2024
Hajipur Town, District-Vaishali.
8. It is further submitted on behalf of Respondent No. 4
that respondent no.-4 filed a Pre-Litigation Partition Suit no.
160/2013 on 14.6.2013 before the Permanent Lok Adalat,
Vaishali, in which one of her daughters namely Mintu Devi wife
of Amresh Sharma resident of village- Jadhua Baghtola, P.S.-
Hajipur Town, District-Vaishali was made a party.
9. He also submits that respondent no.- 4 has not made
her daughter namely Indu Devi @ Bindu Devi wife of Shankar
Sharma of village-Saidpur Rajauli, P.O. + P.S.- Sadar Hajipur,
District-Vaishali, in Pre-Litigation Partition Suit no. 160/2013 as
party as she was traceless since more than 7 years which is
specifically stated in paragraph no-14 of Pre-Litigation Partition
Suit no. 160/2013.
10. It is further submitted on behalf of the Respondent
that petitioner of this case, did not reply to the paragraph -14 of
Pre-Litigation Partition Suit no. 160/2013 as such she / present
petitioner has no locus standi to contest in this case.
11. That daughter of the respondent no.-4 namely Indu
Devi @ Bindu Devi is married with Shankar Sharma of village-
Saidpur Rajauli, P.O. + P.S.-Sadar Hajipur, District-Vaishali and
from their wedlock, three children namely Chandan Sharma
Patna High Court CWJC No.9577 of 2021 dt.01-02-2024
aged about 25 yrs Male, Kundan Kumar aged about 20 yrs Male
and Ravi Kumar aged about 16 yrs Male, are born. While
present petitioner namely Indu Devi is wife of Sri Amresh
Kumar Singh, resident of village-Sanchipatti ward no. 08,
Hajipur, District-Vaishali.
12. He next submits that till date neither respondent no. 4
nor 5 or husband of Indu Devi @ Bindu Devi namely Shankar
Sharma have any information regarding existence of Indu Devi
@ Bindu Devi (daughter of respondent no.-4).
13. I have considered the submissions of the parties.
14. This Court vide judgment dated 23.01.2024 passed in
the case of Shyam Babu Sah and Another Vs. The State of
Bihar and Others (CWJC No. 19179 of 2013) after considering
various judgments passed by this Court has held in paragraph
No. 12 and 13 as follows:-
"12. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Nawal Kishore Prasad Singh and Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.
(Supra) in paragraph 4, 5 and 6 has held as follows :-
4. 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 stage.
5. 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.9577 of 2021 dt.01-02-2024
be passed. The very stage of proving one's case is
obliterated when one approaches the Lok Adalat.
6. In the present case, it is obvious that the
very petition before the Lok Adalat for partition of the suit
property was collusive. A father of the minor children is a
natural guardian. In the present case, although the mother
of the minor children had died, the guardian of the minor
children. Nevertheless, the Lok Adalat had audacity to
accept the petition by the grandfather and his claim to be
the guardian of the minor children. Ex-facie, the petition
and the compromise were collusive. Such a collusive decree
could not have been sustained by the learned Single Judge.
13. This Court in the case of Lallan Pandey and Anr. Vs.
State of Bihar and Ors. (Supra) in paragraph No. 8, 9, 11 and 12 has held
as follows:-
"8. This Court find force in the submission of
learned counsel for the petitioners that even if the
petitioners are said to have signed the compromise
petition but still the award of the Permanent Lok
Adalat has to be quashed in view of the fact that
Permanent Lok Adalat can only resolve dispute 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.
9. Similar issue has been decided in the case of
Dhirendra Pratap Singh v. Ravi Kant Singh
(supra). It will be relevant to quote paragraph nos.
9, 10, 11, 15 and 16 of the aforesaid decision, which
read as under:-
"9. From the conjoint reading of Section
22-A(a), 22B and 22A(b), it would be
evident that "Permanent Lok Adalat"
Patna High Court CWJC No.9577 of 2021 dt.01-02-2024
can be established only for exercising
jurisdiction in respect of one or more
"public utility services‟as defined
under Section 22-A.
10. A "Permanent Lok Adalat", in view of these
provisions can have no jurisdiction with
respect to any matter other than public
utility services as defined under Section 22-
A(b).
11. This is also to be noted that these provisions
fall under Chapter VI-A of the Act which
deals with pre-litigation, conciliation and
settlement. From the heading of Chapter VI-
A, it will appear that a "Permanent Lok
Adalat" shall have no jurisdiction in respect
of a matter which had been pending in a
court of law. It can have jurisdiction with
respect to only such matters which have so
far not travelled to the court of law.
15. There are two aspects of the matter, as has
been noted above, none of the public utility
services within the meaning of Section
22A(b) was the subject matter of the suit.
The subject matter of the suit had no
connection at all with the public utility
services for which Permanent Lok Adalats
are established and only over which the
Permanent Lok Adalat can have jurisdiction.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, in
my opinion, the "Permanent Lok Adalat"
had no jurisdiction at all to entertain the
application filed by the Respondent No. 2 for
any purpose whatsoever with respect to the
subject matter of the Title Suit No.283 of
2003. The impugned order dated 10.06.2011
Patna High Court CWJC No.9577 of 2021 dt.01-02-2024
passed by "Permanent Lok Adalat" Kaumur
at Bhabhua, in Miscellaneous Case No.06 of
2004 cannot be sustained being absolutely
without jurisdiction. Secondly; in any case, a
"Permanent Lok Adalat" could not have
entertained any dispute which was brought
before any court prior to parties
approaching to "Permanent Lok Adalat". A
"Permanent Lok Adalat" certainly has the
jurisdiction even to adjudicate upon the
disputes between the parties but only with
respect to pre-litigation matters when the
dispute relates to one of the public utility
services. The "Permanent Lok Adalat"
cannot have any jurisdiction to deal with any
dispute other than that provided under
Chapter VI-A of the Legal Services
Authorities Act, 1987.
16. Submission made on behalf of the
respondents cannot be accepted in view of
the discussions as above. Accordingly, this
application is allowed. The impugned order
dated 10.06.2011 passed by 'Permanent Lok
Adalat', Kaimur at Bhabhua in
Miscellaneous case no. 6 of 2004 is set
aside."
11. Considering the aforesaid decisions of this
Court and also considering the facts of this case, I
am of the view that in this case the subject matter of
the Partition Suit does not relate to any of the
Public Utility Services, over which the Permanent
Lok Adalat can exercise jurisdiction. A
Court/Authority having no jurisdiction in the matter
Patna High Court CWJC No.9577 of 2021 dt.01-02-2024
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.
Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the
impugned award of the Permanent Lok Adalat is
without jurisdiction.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this
application is allowed. Accordingly, the award
dated 27.09.2005 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat,
Rohtas in Partition Suit No.502 of 2005 is set
aside. However, the parties are given liberty to
approach the competent Civil Court for partition of
their property.
15. From the discussions above and from the judgments
mentioned above, it is clear that the Permanent Lok Adalats do
not have power to decide a suit and no civil suit should have
been filed in the Lok Adalat directly.
16. In view of the above, this application is allowed.
17. Accordingly, order dated 20.08.2013 and award
pursuant to the same by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Vaishali at
Hajipur in Pr-litigation Suit No. 160 of 2013 is hereby quashed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Saif/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 15.02.2024
Transmission Date N.A.
