LPA No. 1510 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1510 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: August 24, 2011 Bimla Thakran and others ...Appellants Versus Smt. Phool Kaur and another ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. N.D. Achint, Advocate, for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? GURDEV SINGH, J. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent has been preferred against the order dated 4.8.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge, vide which he accepted the writ petition filed by Phool Kaur- respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'writ petitioner') and quashed the order dated 7.5.2003 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat- respondent No.2 in favour of one Bijender Singh Thakran. One suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction was filed by Bijender Singh Thakran against Phool Kaur-writ petitioner in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurgaon. An LPA No. 1510 of 2011 2 application was filed by the plaintiff before that court for sending the suit to the Permanent Lok Adalat, which was not objected to by the writ petitioner and accordingly, the same was sent to the Permanent Lok Adalat, for disposal in accordance with law. The Permanent Lok Adalat recorded the statements of the parties. The writ petitioner in her statement admitted the claim of the plaintiff and in view of the statements of the parties, the Permanent Lok Adalat passed the award declaring the plaintiff to be the owner in possession of the house in dispute. It appears that Bijender Singh Thakran died after passing of that award. The writ petition was filed against the present appellants, being the successors-in-interest of Bijender Singh Thakran. Though the award was challenged on a number of grounds, but the main ground was regarding the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat to pass the award regarding the matter, not pertaining to the public utility services. The learned Single Judge, after discussing the relevant provisions of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') came to the conclusion that relief of declaration and injunction in relation to the immovable property can neither be granted by the Permanent Lok Adalat nor it can entertain the said matter. Accordingly, the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat was quashed. Learned counsel for appellants, while challenging the order of the learned Single Judge, submitted that the civil court had the jurisdiction to refer the case to the Lok Adalat, after it came to the conclusion that there was every possibility of the parties reaching at some mutual settlement. After the case was referred to the Lok Adalat, statements of the parties were recorded, in which they stated about the settlement arrived at between them. It was on the basis of the compromise between the parties that the award LPA No. 1510 of 2011 3 was passed. Such award passed by the Lok Adalat could not have been set aside in the writ petition. It was never the intention of the parties that the matter be referred to the Permanent Lok Adalat and they wanted that it should be referred to Lok Adalat. According to the learned counsel, the Permanent Lok Adalat, to whom the matter was referred by the Civil Court, was acting as Lok Adalat and the award passed by it is to be treated as the award of the Lok Adalat. We do not agree with the contentions so raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. Lok Adalats and the Permanent Lok Adalats are two different tribunals, exercising jurisdiction in different spheres and possess different powers of adjudication. No doubt, both are the creature of the Act, but there is a clear distinction between the two. Lok Adalats are organized under Section 19 of the Act. Cases of which Lok Adalats can take cognizance are mentioned in Section 20 thereof. Lok Adalats have the jurisdiction to determine and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of any case pending before the court and referred to it and any matter which is falling within its jurisdiction and is not brought before it. A court can refer a case pending before it to the Lok Adalat only on the request of both the parties or one of the parties, who makes an application before it for such a reference and when it is prima facie satisfied that there are chances of settlement. On the other hand, Permanent Lok Adalat is established under Section 22-B of the Act for exercising such jurisdiction in respect of one or more public utility services. The “public utility services”, is defined in Section 22A and means any— (i) transport service for the carriage of passengers or goods by air, road or water; or LPA No. 1510 of 2011 4 (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.” It is pertinent to note that the heading of Chapter VI-A of the Act, which contains establishment of Permanent Lok Adalat, is “Pre- litigation conciliation and settlement.” This aspect of the matter stands clear from sub section (1) of Section 22-C of the Act. As per that sub-section, any party to a dispute may, before the dispute is brought before any court, make an application to the Permanent Lok Adalat for settlement of dispute. Thus, once a dispute has been taken before the court, it can only be referred to the Lok Adalat, if the above described circumstances exist and not to the Permanent Lok Adalat which deals with pre-litigative stage. It cannot be said that the jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat and Permanent Lok Adalat is synonymous or the same. All the relevant sections were discussed at length by the learned Singled Judge and he reached the correct conclusion that a relief of declaration and injunction in relation to immovable property is neither relief that a Permanent Lok Adalat can grant nor it can entertain such a subject matter and, as such, the award passed by it is nonest and outside its jurisdiction. It does not lie in the mouth of the learned counsel for LPA No. 1510 of 2011 5 the appellants to contend that the prayer of the parties was to send the case to the Lok Adalat. It is very much clear from the order dated 5.5.2003 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon, that the application was filed before him for sending the case to the Permanent Lok Adalat, Gurgaon, and it was in view of that application that the same was sent to the Permanent Lok Adalat for disposal in accordance with law. Such reference could not have been made and if made, at least the Permanent Lok Adalat should have referred back the case to the Civil Court instead of passing an award by assuming the jurisdiction which it never possessed. There is no ground for the admission of the appeal. The same is hereby dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) (GURDEV SINGH ) JUDGE JUDGE August 24, 2011 prem