Master Vikrant vs P.O. The Permanent Lok Adalat and others

Rajiv Narain Raina, J.—This order will dispose of CWP No. 23519 of 2011 and CWP No. 23603 of 2011 as common questions of law and fact are involved. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer:-

i) That this Hon''ble court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ thereby quashing Awards Annexure P-8 (dated 11.8.2001 & 17.8.2002) passed by the respondent No. 1 by which the civil suit filed by the respondent No. 2 has been decreed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5, even through on the date of compromise the property in question stood transferred in the name of the petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were left with no right title or interest after execution of the sale deed Annexure P-2 (dated 27.07.1998) by respondent No. 4 in favour of respondent No. 3 and further the judgment Annexure P-14 (dated 18.10.2011) in so far as it adjudicate on the rights of the party after holding that it had not jurisdiction to try the matter, may kindly be set aside and as an interim relief the dispossession of the petitioner may kindly be stayed during the pendency of the present petition.

The present case has a checked history involving multiple litigation with respect to sale of a plot measuring 166.66 sq. yards described as Kothi No. 1-A, Beauty Avenue, Phase-II, Amritsar. The property has changed many hands. The cause for approaching this Court is against the award/orders passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat dated 11.08.2001 and 17.08.2002 on the ground that fraud was practiced on the petitioner. The immediate cause however is the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat. In a suit for declaration filed by the petitioner, the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar in Civil Suit No. 279 of 15.03.2003 passed an award dated 18.10.2011 u/s 22-E of the Legal Services Authorities (Amendment) Act 2002 in which it was held that the settlement under the awards dated 11.08.2001 and 17.08.2002 had been passed on the basis of a compromise between Chaman Lal Chopra on one side and Sanjay Kapoor and Kali Charan on the other and, therefore, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to undo the orders of the Permanent Lok Adalat which had become final and binding upon all the parties or upon the persons claiming thereunder. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed. The trial Court has held as under:-

Thus, as per the pleaded case of the plaintiff, he has been claiming his right, title and interest in the suit property through said Sanjay Kapoor and Kali Charan who were party to the said civil suit titled as Chaman Lal Chopra Vs. Sanjay Kapoor and another, wherein the above mentioned awards dated 11.08.2001 and 17.08.2002 were passed on the basis of the compromise and settlement between Chaman Lal Chopra on one side and Sanjay Kapoor and Kali Charan on the other side. As per section 22(E) of the Legal Services Authorities Act 2002, every award of Permanent Lok Adalat either on merit or in terms of settlement agreement becomes final and binding upon all the parties thereto and upon the persons claiming under them. Section 22E (4) further provides that award passed by Permanent Lok Adalat cannot called in question in any suit, application or execution proceedings. Section 22E of the Legal Services Authorities (Amendment) Act 2002 is reproduced exactly as under: 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 proceedings.

(5) The Permanent Lok Adalat may transmit any award made by it to be civil court having local jurisdiction and such civil court shall execute the order as if it were a decree made by that court.

Mr. Bhandari does not dispute that his client was not party to the awards of the Permanent Lok Adalat dated 11.08.2001 and 17.08.2002 which have been impugned in this petition. If the plaintiff-petitioner was not a party either to the compromise or to the award passed thereon, he would not be bound by those decisions. Such a person would be free to take recourse to separate and independent proceedings to challenge the dispensation of which he was not a party since it would not operate as res judicata qua an outsider though affected by the decision.

Ms. Aparna Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 has raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this writ petition and contends that award of the Lok Adalat cannot be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Admittedly, civil litigation is pending between the parties. The petitioner would remain at liberty to ventilate his grievances, if any, before the Civil Court and no interference is called for in writ jurisdiction to decide hotly and seriously disputed questions of fact. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, he would have to take his alternative remedies unencumbered by the judgment and order. This petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, this Court would therefore, leave the parties to their respective remedies to settle private disputes inter se between them in appropriate proceedings in a forum of competent jurisdiction.

Faced with this situation, Mr. Bhandari submits that he may be afforded the protection of Section 14 of the Limitation Act for a direction to exclude the period spent pursuing this remedy from 12.12.2011, when the petition was filed till 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order to enable him to approach the appropriate forum for ventilation of his grievances on the premise that his client was not a party before the dispensation of the Permanent Lok Adalat. Dismissed as not maintainable with the liberty aforesaid and exclusion of the period as above from the period of limitation.