Civil Writ Petition No. 15644 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 15644 of 2009 Date of decision: 05.01.2011 Mukesh Kumar and others ...Petitioners Versus Lok Adalat/Samjhauta Sadan Panchkula etc. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sunil Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Shruti Jain, A.A.G., Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioners have filed this writ petition for quashing the award dated 22.05.2009 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Lok Adalat/Samjhauta Sadan, Panchkula on the ground that the same is illegal, ultra vires of the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987 and is without jurisdiction. Prayer further is for directing the Lok Adalat to decide the case, in accordance with law. One Ganga Ram alongwith the petitioners and respondents No. 3 to 7 purchased SCO No. 14, Sector 11, Panchkula on 20.04.1989. The parties are stated to be member of one family and related to each other, as per the pedigree table given in the writ petition. In the year 1990, Ganga Ram, on the basis of family settlement, effected the changes in the respective shares of Civil Writ Petition No. 15644 of 2009 2 respondents No. 3 to 7, who relinquished their shares in the property in favour of petitioner No. 1. By this act of relinquishment, petitioner No. 1 became owner to the extent of 1/3rd share in the property. The share standing in the name of Dharshna Devi devolved upon Mukesh Kumar, petitioner No.1, and consequently he also became owner of 1/3rd share of the property. This family settlement was acted upon but still respondents No. 3 to 7 threatened to re-open the same by asking for re-dividing the share which necessitated the filing of civil suit. The petitioners thereupon filed a civil suit on 26.09.2008. The suit remained pending and during the pendency of the same, the parties entered into compromise on 15.12.2008. Since it was a compromise between the family members, the case was sent to the Lok Adalat/Samjhauta Sadan, Panchkula to decide the same on the basis of compromise. The Lok Adalat/Samjhauta Sadan, Panchkula vide its order dated 22.05.2009 has rejected the compromise by taking a view that it was a case of relinquishment of rights in immovable property of more than Rs. 100/-, which according to the provisions of Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, could not be allowed without registered document. In this regard, Lok Adalat has relied upon a decision rendered in CWP No. 21823 of 2008 titled as Vijender Beniwal versus Presiding Judge Permanent and Continuous Lok Adalat, Samjohta Sadan, Gurgaon. The petitioners have, accordingly, challenged this order and would plead that the ratio of law laid down in Vijender Beniwal's case (supra) would not apply to the facts of the present case as the said case was between the strangers whereas the present case is Civil Writ Petition No. 15644 of 2009 3 between the family members. The counsel would also highlight that even as per the policy adopted by the HUDA, this sort of arrangement is permissible between the family members. Further submission is that if the Lok Adalat was not to allow the compromise, the case should have been sent back to the civil court for decision rather than adjudicating the lis on merits for which the Lok Adalat had no jurisdiction. The State counsel, who is acting as Amicus in this case, fairly submits that Lok Adalat would have consensual jurisdiction to decide and may not have jurisdiction to decide the lis on merits. The proper course for the Lok Adalat was to sent the case back for decision by the civil Court in case, compromise was not to be acted upon. The Lok Adalat may not have jurisdiction to decide the issue on merits. In this regard, reference can be made to Sham Lal Sharma v. State of Haryana (P&H)(DB) 2002 (2) S.C.T. 287. The impugned order passed by the Lok Adalat, thus, cannot be sustained. The same is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the civil Court for deciding the civil suit in accordance with law. Since the matter has remained pending for considerable time, the civil Court may see the feasibility of deciding the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The civil Court would be at liberty to seek extension of time, in case, the Court find it difficulty deciding the case within a period as specified. January 05, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE