IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11633 of 2010 1. SHATRUDHAN KUMAR S/O LATE RADHIKA DEVI(ADOPTIVE MOTHER), AND NATURAL SON OF DASHRATH PRASAD R/O PURANI BAZAR, RAM NAGAR, P.S.RAMNAGAR, DISTT-WEST CHAMPARAN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. PRSIDING OFFICER, LOK ADALAT BAGAHA, WEST CHAMPARAN 3. ANCHAL ADHIKARI BAGAHA ANCHAL, DISTT-WEST CHAMPARAN 4. CIRCLE INSPECTOR ANCHAL BGAGAHA-1, P.S.BAGAHA, DISTT-WEST CHAMPARAN 5. HALKA KARAMCHARI ANCHAL BAGAHA-1, P..S.BAGAHA, DISTT-WEST CHAMPARAN 6. DINANATH CHAUDHARY S/O SUKARI CHAUDHARY R/O BAGAHA, P.S.BAGAHA, DISTT-WEST CHAMPARAN ----------- 4 09.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The order impugned dated 02.05.2010 has been passed by the Presiding Officer, Mega Lok Adalat, Bagaha. The claim of mutation has been decided in the following manner:- **Hkfo’; ds ftl i{k dks LokfeRo l{ke U;k;ky; }kjk izkIr gksrk gS ,oa bldh lwpuk vapy dk;kZy; dks i;kZIr gksrk gS rks LokfeRo izkIrdrkZ ds i{k es ukekUrj.k bl vkns”k dks foyksfir djrs gq;s fd;k tk;sxkA rRdky n[ky dCtk ds vk/kkj ij ,oa gYdk deZpkjh ,oa vapy fujh{kd ds izfrosnu ds vkyksd es vkosnd Jh nhukukFk pkS/kjh ds i{k es iz”uxr Hkwfe [kkrk 391 [ksljk 2 1202 jdck &0&3&0 dk nkf[ky [kkfjt Lohd`r fd;k tkrk gSA** While assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order suffers from serious infirmity in so much so the matter was not referred to Lok Adalat by an order passed by the authority/Court in seisin of the case on the application filed by either of the party. It is next contended that admittedly, no notice was issued and served upon the writ petitioner or the respondent no. 6. It is next contended that the impugned order was not the result of a compromise/settlement arrived at by and between the writ petitioner and respondent no.6. It is the stand of the petitioner that the matter concerning mutation of the land in question was being hotly contested by both the parties. Petitioner’s claim title and possession over the land by reason of his adoption by Radhika Devi who inherited the property. On the other hand, the respondent no. 6, made a claim respecting the land, based on an un-registered sale deed (Kista Kewala). It is the stand of the parties before this Court that no notice was issued before passing the 3 impugned order. It further appears that the impugned order is anchored on a settlement/compromise arrived at between the parties. Both the parties deny such settlement/compromise. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the provision contained in the Legal Services Authorities Act-1997(for short “the Act”), in order to demonstrate that neither a reference was made nor the notices was issued and a compromise/settlement was arrived at between the parties. Learned counsel for the private respondent is also not in a position to controvert the aforesaid stand of the writ petitioner. Both the parties agree that in case the impugned order is found completely without jurisdiction the matter shall be contested by them before the respondent Circle Officer. Having regard to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and after going through the materials on record, this Court is satisfied that the impugned order suffers from serious jurisdictional error(s). There has been non- compliance with provisions of the Act particularly 4 Section19 (5) and 20 thereof. In that view of the matter, order dated 02.05.2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, Mega Lok Adalat also signed by the Circle Officer, Bagha is quashed and set aside. Mutation case no. 3653/09- 10 is restored on the file of the respondent Anchal Adhikari for disposal in accordance with law, after hearing both sides. Amrendra/ (K. K. Mandal, J.)