Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1349 (PAT)

Mahendra Rai v. State of Bihar

2012-09-21

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2012
ORDER Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Challenge is to the award rendered by the so-called Permanent Lok Adalat in Partition Case No.358 (D) of 2001, which according to the petitioners had been passed by playing fraud against their interest, in the sense that though parties to the dispute did want to settle the issue by partition of family property amongst themselves and some kind of arrangement was required to be made but when the matter finally ended at the door-step of the Lok Adalat, it is alleged that the so-called schedule of the compromise was changed. Certain properties which were required to be included were excluded or vice versa. When the petitioners came to learn about it they decided to file a writ application. 3. The stand of the petitioners is that fraud vitiates not only the award but the so-called decision of the Lok Adalat especially when the circumstances indicate some kind of hurry in putting a seal of approval over the so-called compromise produced on behalf of the private respondents on the same day and date. 4. Counsel for the private respondents submits that the allegation of fraud, which is being alleged, is only an after thought and is not based on actual state of affairs. If an award rendered by the Lok Adalat is not suiting the petitioners then they cannot wriggle out of the situation and the award is binding on both and cannot be appealed before any forum. 5. This Court has serious reservation on the legal position which is sought to be raised by the private respondents because not statute can take away the powers conferred under the Constitution upon the High Court to scrutinize any action of an authority/forum or a quasi judicial authority, which is a creation of a statute. 6. Counsel for the private respondents himself has drawn the attention of this Court to a decision rendered by a Divisions Bench in CWJC No.14426 of 2009, disposed of on 6th November, 2009. There also the Division Bench has held that if there is allegation of fraud and especially in the matter of such kind of partition, then something more is required to be done by an appropriate court while performing its duty of determining the rights of the family members to the dispute. 7. There also the Division Bench has held that if there is allegation of fraud and especially in the matter of such kind of partition, then something more is required to be done by an appropriate court while performing its duty of determining the rights of the family members to the dispute. 7. The Court has held in its order that such matters can be subject matter of challenge even before a civil court where all evidence etc. can be led. 8. If this is the position in law expressed by a Division Bench of this Court on an issue arising from an award of Lok Adalat, then obviously since there is no meeting of mind between the parties to the arrangement on which a seal of approval was given by the Lok Adalat on allegations of fraud etc. the dispute sought to be settled is of no help in any manner. 9. This Court is also wary of such adjudication or award especially in the matter of such family disputes where arrangement is seriously being questioned by one party or the other. If that be so, then the award in question will not bind the parties and it will be open to the parties to approach a civil court of competent jurisdiction and get appropriate declaration in their favour. 10. Writ is allowed. Annexure – 2 and 6 are quashed for the reasons as above.