Janardan Singh And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2253 of 2014 ======================================================
1. Janardan Singh Son Of Late Tunga Nath Singh Resident Of Village - Mahdah, P.O. Mahdah, P.S. Buxar Muffasil, Distt. - Buxar
2. Rajendra Prasad Singh Son Of Late Tunga Nath Singh Resident Of Village - Mahdah, P.O. Mahdah, P.S. Buxar Muffasil, Distt. - Buxar
3. Nepaljee Singh Son Of Late Tunga Nath Singh Resident Of Village - Mahdah, P.O. Mahdah, P.S. Buxar Muffasil, Distt. - Buxar
4. Bachan Singh Son Of Late Tunga Nath Singh Resident Of Village - Mahdah, P.O. Mahdah, P.S. Buxar Muffasil, Distt. - Buxar
5. Vikash Kumar Singh Son Of Bachan Singh Resident Of Village - Mahdah, P.O. Mahdah, P.S. Buxar Muffasil, Distt. - Buxar
6. Vijay Kumar Singh Son Of Bachan Singh Resident Of Village - Mahdah, P.O. Mahdah, P.S. Buxar Muffasil, Distt. - Buxar .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through the Collector Of Distt. Buxar
2. The D.C.L.R., Buxar At Buxar
3. The Anchal Adhikari, Buxar At Buxar
4. Vainkateshwar Singh S/O Late Saligram Singh Resident Of Village - Mahdah, P.S. Buxar Muffasil, Distt. - Buxar
5. Sushila Devi W/O Gauri Shankar Singh, Daughter Of Vainkateshwar Singh C/O Vainkateshwar Singh, Resident Of Village - Mahdah, P.O. Mahdah, P.S. Buxar Muffasil, Distt. - Buxar
6. Naina Devi W/O Gulabjee Singh, D/O Vainkateshwar Singh C/O Vainkateshwar Singh, Resident Of Village - Mahdah, P.O. Mahdah, P.S. Buxar Muffasil, Distt. - Buxar
7. Meena Devi W/O Uma Shankar Singh, D/O Vainkateshwar Singh C/O Vainkateshwar Singh, Resident Of Village - Mahdah, P.O. Mahdah, P.S. Buxar Muffasil, Distt. - Buxar
8. Uma Devi W/O Bijendra Singh, D/O Vainketshwar Singh C/O Vainkateshwar Singh, Resident Of Village - Mahdah, P.O. Mahdah, P.S. Buxar Muffasil, Distt. - Buxar
9. Binaya Singh S/O Bachhan Singh Resident Of Village - Mahdah, P.S. Buxar Muffasil, Distt. - Buxar .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Brij Mohan Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajiv Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER
06-01-2016 I.A. No. 516 of 2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners on the interlocutory application being I.A. No. 3438 of 2015. The instant application has been filed for substitution of the legal representative of deceased-petitioner No.1. The aforesaid application is allowed and the legal representatives are substituted in place of the deceased-petitioner No.1. They have already filed vakalatnama.
I.A. No. 3438 of 2015 stands disposed of accordingly. C.W.J.C. No. 2253 of 2014 This application, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioners for setting aside the award dated 18.11.2011 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Buxar in Pre- Litigation Case No. 239 of 2011.
The only grievance of the petitioners is that in the prelitigation case, the petitioners were not made party and in absence of the petitioners, the respondents filed pre-litigation case and compromised themselves and a collusive award has been passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent No.9 has also filed C.W. J.C. No. 12276 of 2012, in which, notices have been issued to the respondents therein.
Perused the order. Perused the Notice dated 01.07.2013. It may be mentioned here that so far the State of Bihar is concerned, all the Lok Adalats have been constituted under Section 19 of the Legal Services Authority Act (for short "the Act"). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Interglobe Aviation Limited Versus N. Satchidanand reported in (2011) 7 SCC 463 has held as follows;
"32. We may also at this juncture refer to the confusion caused on account of the term Permanent Lok Adalat being used to describe two different types of Lok Adalats. The Legal Services Authority Act refers to two types of Lok Adalats. The first is a Lok Adalat constituted under Section 19 of the Act which has no adjudicatory functions or powers and which discharges purely conciliatory functions. The second is a Permanent Lok Adalat established under Section 22-B(1) of the Legal Services Authority Act to exercise jurisdiction in respect of public utility services, having both conciliatory and adjudicatory functions.
The expression "Permanent Lok Adalat" should refer only to Permanent Lok Adalats established under Section 22-B(1) of the Legal Services Authority Act and not to the Lok Adalats constituted under Section
19. However, in many States, when Lok Adalats are constituted under Section 19 of the Legal Services Authority Act for regular or continuous sittings as contrasted from periodical sittings, they are also called as Permanent Lok Adalats even though they do not have adjudicatory functions."
In the present case as stated above the Lok Adalat, which passed the award, has been constituted under Section 19 of the Legal Services Authority Act, which has only conciliatory
functions. Now, the question, which the petitioners are raising that they had a share in the property, which have been partitioned by the respondents collusively in the pre-litigation case, cannot be decided in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Meena Chaudhary Versus Dr. Dilip Chaoudhary disposed of on 06.11.2009 (C.W. J.C. No. 14426 of 2009) has held that powers of Lok Adalat are not co-extensive with that of civil courts, who have full powers to take evidences including oral evidence and also to exercise necessary powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Admittedly, unless the finding is recorded that there had been no partition between the present petitioners and the persons, who are parties before the Lok Adalat and unless any finding is recorded that these petitioners have also got share in the property or that they are also title holder with respect to the subject matter of the award, no order can be passed in favour of the petitioners. All these matters can only be decided by a competent Court of civil jurisdiction. Because, the award arrived at between two parties, which is only a contract between them, it will never bound these petitioners as has been held by the Division Bench in the case Meena Chaudhary (supra).
All these matters have already been considered by this Court in the case of Kanti Devi Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2012 (2) PLJR 18. The relief claimed by the petitioners in this writ application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is fully covered by the aforesaid decision, therefore, the award of the Permanent Lok Adalat cannot be set aside only on the ground that the petitioners are not made party to the award. The question of fraud or collusiveness is a question that can be investigated by the civil court only. The High Court has no jurisdiction to decide the question of fraud, collusiveness etc. Accordingly, this writ application is, hereby, dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to move before appropriate forum by initiating appropriate proceeding.
brajesh/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.) U