Patna High Court
Rameshwar Chaubey vs The State Of Bihar on 20 March, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.665 of 2018
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2395 of 2009
======================================================
Rameshwar Chaubey, Son of Late Radha Mohan, resident of Village, Post
Office and Police Station- Brahampur, District- Buxar.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Collector, Buxar.
2. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Buxar.
3. The Anchal Adhikari, Anchal Brahampur, District Buxar.
4. The Director Consolidation, Bihar, Patna.
5. The Consolidation Officer, Brahampur, District Buxar.
8. Rabindra Upadhyay alias Barak Upadhyay.
9. Surendra Upadhyay alias Chhote Upadhyay.
10. Satyendra Upadhyay alias Munna Upadhyay.
11. Harendra Upadhyay alias Guddu Upadhyay.
12. Yogendra Upadhyay. All 8 to 12 are the minor Sons of Triveni Upadhyay
under the Guardianship of their mother Dulhin Savitri Devi, wife of Triveni
Upadhyay. All residents of Village Brahampur, Post Office and Police
Station Brahampur District- Buxar.
13. Most. Rajwanti Devi, W/o late Rajendra Mishir, Resident of Village-
1. Deokali (Kottiya), P.O. and P.S.- Brahampur, Dist- Buxar.
13. Hare Ram Mishir, Son of late Rajendra Mishir, Resident of Village- Deokali
2. (Kottiya), P.O. and P.S.- Brahampur, Dist- Buxar.
13. Rajnarayan Mishir, Son of late Rajendra Mishir, Resident of Village-
3. Deokali (Kottiya), P.O. and P.S.- Brahampur, Dist- Buxar.
13. Jagnarayan Mishir, Son of late Rajendra Mishir, Resident of Village-
4. Deokali (Kottiya), P.O. and P.S.- Brahampur, Dist- Buxar.
14. Muneshwar Chaubey, Son of Radha Mohan Chaubey, resident of Village and
Post Office and Police Station Brahampur, District- Buxar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Patna High Court L.P.A No.665 of 2018 dt.20-03-2025
2/12
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Kamal Nayan Choubey, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate
Mr. Dineshwar Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Shashank Shekhar Dubey, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam, AAG-12
Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 20-03-2025
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The challenge in this appeal is to the
judgment dated 24.02.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2395
of 2009, whereby the writ petition preferred by the
appellant was dismissed with an observation that it would
be open for the appellant to seek appropriate relief by
filing a Title suit.
3. The records reveal that a Title suit was
filed by respondent No. 6 in which the appellant was not
impleaded, though he was a necessary party; but
respondent No. 13 was impleaded. The matter was
Patna High Court L.P.A No.665 of 2018 dt.20-03-2025
referred to the Lok Adalat, where on the basis of a
compromise, an award was passed, which substantially
and directly affected the title of the appellant.
4. The background facts necessary for
disposal of this appeal are that the property in question,
which the appellant claims to be his ancestral property,
was purchased some times in the year 1924 by a
registered sale-deed. Over a period of time, the names of
the ancestors of the appellant and of him was mutated
and recorded in the Revenue records. According to the
appellant, an attempt was made in the past, during
survey operations, by respondent No. 6 to have the name
of the appellant expunged, but such efforts were foiled by
the order of the Deputy Director, Consolidation, some
times in the year 2008. This lent finality to the matter
and the name of the appellant remained on the records
with the title of the appellant remaining undisturbed.
5. Thereafter, a Title suit was filed in the year
2002 vide Title Suit No. 454 of 2002, in which a
Patna High Court L.P.A No.665 of 2018 dt.20-03-2025
compromise was collusively obtained before the Lok
Adalat on 30th of August, 2003. The appellant was never
made party to the said suit nor did he have any notice or
information about the same. It was only on the basis of
the afore-noted consent decree that respondent Nos. 6
and 13 started asserting their rights. No sooner, the
appellant came to learn about it, a writ petition vide
C.W.J.C. No. 2395 of 2009 was filed for setting aside the
award of the Lok Adalat.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents
has submitted that Lok Adalat had only approved the
compromise decree by the Trial Court and, therefore, it
may not be taken as an award of the Lok Adalat; rather a
decree of the Civil Court and in that event, the appellant
has a forum of preferring a Title suit for vindication of his
rights.
7. Though Mr. Choubey, the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the appellant wanted this Court to
get into the merits of the case, but we, on the perusal of
Patna High Court L.P.A No.665 of 2018 dt.20-03-2025
the provision contained in Section 22E (4) of the Legal
Services Authorities Act, 1987 (in short the Act of 1987),
are of the view that relegating the appellant in this
circumstance to the Civil Courts by the learned Single
Judge was not appropriate.
8. Section 22E of the Act of 1987 reads as
follows :-
22E. Award of Permanent Lok
Adalat to be final.-(1) Every award of the
Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act made
either on merit or in terms of a settlement
agreement shall be final and binding on all the
parties thereto and on persons claiming under
them.
(2) Every award of the Permanent
Lok Adalat under this Act shall be deemed to
be a decree of a civil court.
(3) The award made by the
Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act shall be
by a majority of the persons constituting the
Permanent Lok Adalat.
(4) Every award made by the
Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act shall be
final and shall not be called in question in any
original suit, application or execution
Patna High Court L.P.A No.665 of 2018 dt.20-03-2025
proceeding.
(emphasis supplied)
(5) The Permanent Lok Adalat may
transmit any award made by it to a civil court
having local jurisdiction and such civil court
shall execute the order as if it were a decree
made by that court.
9. Sub-Clause (4) of Section 22E of the Act
of 1987 makes it abundantly clear that every award made
by the Permanent Lok Adalat under the Act shall be final
and shall not be called in question in any original suit,
application or execution proceeding.
10. A party cannot be rendered remediless,
more so when fraud is alleged.
11. There is no dispute that in the Title Suit
No. 454 of 2002, the appellant was not a party.
12. Even assuming that entire compromise
proceeding took place before the Trial Court, but since the
award of the Lok Adalat finalized the issue and
compromise was effected, then also, such award could
not have been challenged in any suit or proceeding and in
Patna High Court L.P.A No.665 of 2018 dt.20-03-2025
that event, relegating the appellant to the Civil Court for
the needful was absolutely unjustified and against the
provisions of the Statute.
13. The appellant had a right to contest under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
14. Expressing reservation on this view of
ours, Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, the learned Advocate
for the respondents has referred to a judgment of the
Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Anr. Vs. Jalour
Singh & Ors. : (2008) 2 SCC 660, wherein the following
observations were made in paragraph 12, which reads as
thus:-
"12. It is true that where an award
is made by the Lok Adalat in terms of a
settlement arrived at between the parties
(which is duly signed by parties and annexed
to the award of the Lok Adalat), it becomes
final and binding on the parties to the
settlement and becomes executable as if it is a
decree of a civil court, and no appeal lies
against it to any court. If any party wants to
challenge such an award based on settlement,
it can be done only by filing a petition under
Patna High Court L.P.A No.665 of 2018 dt.20-03-2025
Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the
Constitution, that too on very limited grounds.
But where no compromise or settlement is
signed by the parties and the order of the Lok
Adalat does not refer to any settlement, but
directs the respondent to either make payment
if it agrees to the order, or approach the High
Court for disposal of appeal on merits, if it
does not agree, is not an award of the Lok
Adalat. The question of challenging such an
order in a petition under Article 227 does not
arise. As already noticed, in such a situation,
the High Court ought to have heard and
disposed of the appeal on merits."
15. We fail to understand as to how the
dictum of the Supreme Court in Jalour Singh (supra) can
be read as rendering a third party to a suit in which there
was a compromise affirmed by the Lok Adalat would be
rendered remediless, especially when no suit or appeal
could be filed against an award passed by the Lok Adalat.
16. What paragraph 12 of the afore-noted
judgment reflects is that an award of the Lok Adalat
would be binding on the parties to the suit or the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.665 of 2018 dt.20-03-2025
proceedings in Lok Adalat and it becomes executable as if
it is a decree of the Civil Court against which no appeal
lies to any Court.
17. In this context, it was explained that if any
party wants to challenge such an award based on
settlement, it can be done only by filing a petition under
Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution, that
too on very limited grounds.
18. The other reference in the paragraph,
referred to above, is in the context of no compromise or
settlement having been signed by the parties and the
order of the Lok Adalat not referring to any settlement
but directing the respondent therein to either make
payment, if it agrees to the order, or approach the High
Court for disposal of appeal on merits, if it does not
agree, is not an award of the Lok Adalat.
19. The misgiving on the part of the
respondent, presently, is on the basis of the partial
reading of paragraph 12 of the judgment referred to
Patna High Court L.P.A No.665 of 2018 dt.20-03-2025
above.
20. If the parties to a proceeding in Lok
Adalat cannot be rendered remediless, so would be case
with a third party, whose rights are substantially and
directly affected by the award of the Lok Adalat in which
he was not a party.
21. Since no proceeding can be maintained in
any Court whatsoever against the award of the Lok
Adalat, the only way in which the defect could be remidied
or the rights of the third party could be vindicated, is by
approaching the High Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
22. This right of the appellant was not
appropriately dealt with by the learned Single Judge.
23. In the afore-noted circumstances, we have
no option but to set aside the judgment of the learned
Single Judge dated 24.02.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No.
2395 of 2009 and restore the writ petition.
24. The writ petition is revived.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.665 of 2018 dt.20-03-2025
25. The learned Single Judge who will hear the
writ petition shall decide the issue raised therein.
26. We also deem it appropriate here to
mention that before the filing of the present appeal, and
in obedience to the judgment passed by the learned
Single Judge, a civil suit had been filed by the appellant,
but a petition for withdrawal of the suit has been filed
long time ago. It would not be necessary to state that the
appellant would be required to withdraw the suit in
question, if not already withdrawn, as it would not be in
the fitness of things that two parallel proceedings be
allowed to be continued.
27. Till such time that the writ petition is
decided, the status quo with respect to the land/property
in question shall be maintained.
28. The records of the original writ petition
has been destroyed because of the passage of time.
However, to the advantage of the parties, a photocopy of
the writ petition is available on record. The Registry is
Patna High Court L.P.A No.665 of 2018 dt.20-03-2025
directed to reconstruct the file before being placed before
the learned Single Judge.
29. The appeal stands disposed off
accordingly.
30. Interlocutory Application/s, if any, also
stands disposed off accordingly.
(Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ)
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Sauravkrsinha/
Praveen-II-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 22.03.2025
Transmission Date NA
