IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14423 of 2009 1. SANGITA SINGH GAUTAM W/O SRI PRIYA NATH SINGH GAUTAM VILL-LALAPUR KUDRA, P.S-KUDRA, DISTT-KAIMUR (BIHAR), AT PRESENT RESIDENT OF GALI NO. 11E, MAHABIR NAGAR, SANTOSH PATH, GAURAKSHANI, P.S-SASARAM, DISTT- ROHTAS, (BIHAR) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, ROHTAS 3. SMT. DHARAMSHEELA PANDEY W/O SRI ANANT KUMAR PANDEY VILL-KARUP, P.S-KARGAHAR, DISTT- ROHTAS 4. ANANT KUMAR PANDEY @ RAM ANANT PANDEY S/O LATE RAM PANDEY VILL-KARUP. P.S- KARGAHAR, DISTT- ROHTAS ----------- 03. 14.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and for the respondent no.-4. A counter affidavit is stated to have been filed by respondent no.4 on 19.2.2010. The same is not available on the record. The office shall place it on record. The Court therefore requested the counsel for the respondent no.4 to make available his copy for perusal so that the writ application may be disposed off if possible at this stage. Let the office retain a Zerox copy of the same on record. An objection has been taken on behalf of respondent no.4 that respondent no. 3 has not entered appearance till date and therefore has no occasion to defend the impugned order. The two are husband and wife respectively. On 26.11.2009 notices were issued to respondent nos. 3 and 4. The service report is of valid service upon both of them. They have both appeared and filed 2 Vakalatnama through two different counsel. The objection is therefore frivolous and merits no consideration. Case No. 665D of 2005 and 775D of 2005 were filed by the petitioner and respondent no.3 respectively before the permanent Lok Adalat at Sasaram. The dispute pertains to certain lands at Mauza- Takia (Sasaram) stated to have been purchased jointly in the name of petitioner and respondent no.4 in 2003. The proceedings before the Lok Adalat ended in a compromise. A compromise petition was filed in Case No. 775D of 2005 on 22.12.2005. Consequently, Case No. 665D of 2005 was dismissed on the basis of compromise. The final award was thus prepared on 22.12.2005. It is further stated that the parties accordingly acted upon the compromise by mutation etc. On 23.10.2008 a Miscellaneous Case No. 17 (M) 2008 was filed by respondent no.4 to set side the award on the ground that it had been passed behind his back and without his consent. The petitioner appeared in the Miscellaneous Case and denied the allegations and contention of respondent no.4 that his signature on the compromise had been forged. The petitioner requested for obtaining the opinion of the handwriting expert. Without any expert evidence on the aspect of the handwriting expert, the Lok Adalat by the impugned order dated 23.7.2009 held that the compromise was not binding 3 as it was signed by only one member and that the signature of respondent no.4 had not been identified by any Advocate. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in Miscellaneous case No. 17M of 2008 respondent no.4 only stated that he came to know about compromise on 7.9.2008. He acknowledges living with his wife respondent no.3 under one roof but still does not disclose how and why he remained silent for three years after the compromise which was also signed by Respondent no. 3, his wife. No date has been mentioned when respondent no.4 filed for a certified copy of the compromise claiming knowledge of forgery from which date. Respondent nos. 3 and 4 submitted that the award was signed by only one member. It was therefore not a legal award. It was next contended that the parties are related. The money originally for the purchase of property in question was paid by respondent nos. 3 and 4. Mutation shall not create title in any of the parties. The matter is one more appropriately to be resolved by proceedings before the Civil Court. Respondent no.4 filed the Miscellaneous Case on a specific ground. He took the objection that he was not aware of the compromise and that it does not bear his signature. The contention therefore was one of forgery. 4 Forgery is a question of fact. If a persons signature has been forged, there has to be a specific finding. If a document during proceedings of the Lok Adalat bears the signature of respondent no.4, there is a presumption of its correctness, but it is rebuttable. The Court does not consider it necessary to go into the question whether the Lok Adalat erred in not calling for the opinion of the handwriting expert as the Court is satisfied from the order dated 23.7.2009 that there is no finding with regard to any forgery of the signature of respondent no.4. That it may not have been identified by an Advocate shall not lead to a conclusion of forgery. As discussed, therefore had to be cogent materials and a proper discussion of facts based on evidence to arrive at a finding of forgery. The impugned order therefore is not sustainable on that ground. The proceedings of the order sheet dated 22.12.2005 is not an award. The order sheet states that it shall be the part of the award. The order sheet is signed by one member but the award drawn up the same date is signed by both the members as available on the record of the writ petition. There is no denial of this fact. The contention that the award was not in consonance with the law as not having been signed by both members was a question to be more appropriately raised by the respondent no.4 in a substantive challenge to the Award before the 5 appropriate forum or in the Miscellaneous case. No such challenge was raised by him in Miscellaneous Case or before any another appropriate forum. The Lok Adalat proceeded at a tangent, completely at variance by deciding a point not urged on behalf of the parties to hold that the award was not in consonance with the law. Section 22 (e) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 states that the award made by the permanent Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court. It shall be final and it shall not be called in question any original suit or execution case. The Lok Adalat has no power to review its own orders. The only ground of which the Lok Adalat may have interfered with the award was on the ground of forgery and fraud, the power inherent in every Court. There is no such finding in the impugned order vis-à-vis respondent no.4. The order of the Lok Adalat dated 23.7.2009 is accordingly set aside. The writ application stands allowed. P.K ( Navin Sinha, J.)