ORDER : 1. The captioned writ petition is filed questioning the order of Lok Adalat in modifying the compromise decree passed in PLC No. 937/2018. 2. The facts leading to the case are as under: Petitioner and respondent, who are siblings, to avoid future complications and litigations filed Pre Litigation Case before District Legal Services Authority, Belagavi in PLC No. 937/2018. The petitioner and respondent filed joint compromise petition. In terms of joint compromise petition, decree was passed on 27.11.2018. 3. Respondent however, subsequently sought modification of the said compromise decree. The District Legal Services Authority has entertained the application filed by the respondent and modified the earlier decree. In terms of modified decree, now respondent is entitled to seek employment in HESCOM Department on compassionate ground. In terms of earlier compromise decree, it was respondent, who tendered no objection enabling the petitioner to seek appointment in HESCOM Department on compassionate ground. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that Lok Adalat having recorded compromise and passed decree in terms of joint compromise petition, had no jurisdiction to entertain the application and thereafter pass modified decree as per Annexure-D. He would vehemently argue and contend that the District Legal Services Authority has no jurisdiction either to review or recall its order/award passed on joint compromise petition. He would further point out that there are no provisions under the Legal Services Authority Act, which empowers Lok Adalath to review the compromise recorded in terms of joint compromise petition. Therefore, he would contend that if respondent feels aggrieved by compromise decree passed in PLC No. 937/2018, he has to avail remedy by approaching this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would vehemently argue and contend that the modified decree passed by Lok Adalat is in accordance with law. Placing reliance on latest judgment tendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K. Srinivasappa and Others vs. M. Mallamma and Others, AIR 2022 SC 2381 he would contend that there is no bar for Lok Adalat to review its order. He has also placed reliance on judgment tendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Compack Enterprises India Private Limited vs. Beant Singh, (2021) 3 SCC 702 . He has also placed reliance on judgment tendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Compack Enterprises India Private Limited vs. Beant Singh, (2021) 3 SCC 702 . Referring to the principles laid down in the said judgment, he would contend that subsequent compromise is based on revised consent of the petitioner and respondent. Therefore, earlier compromise is rightly modified. He would further contend that Lok Adalat has inherent power to rectify a consent decree suffering from clerical or arithmetical errors. Therefore, he would contend that the petitioner having signed subsequent joint compromise petition and having modified earlier compromise decree with the consent of the petitioner, the petitioner is estopped from questioning the modified decree before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has further placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rajendrasingh, AIR 2000 SC 1165 (ii) Dr. Smt. Shashi Pratik vs. Charan Singh and Others, AIR 2009 All. 109 (iii) First Appeal No. 65/2017, dated 28.03.2018 rendered by Allahabad High Court (iv) Mogya Tempbraya Vasave vs. Raya Hunya Vasave, W.P. No. 6027/2022 (v) Bhargavi Constructions and Another vs. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and Others, (2018) 13 SCC 480 (vi) Venture Global Engineering LLC vs. Tech Mahindra Ltd. and Another, 2018 (1) SCC 656 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. 8. A short question that needs consideration at the hands of this Court is as to whether District Legal Services Authority had jurisdiction to entertain the application seeking modification of compromise decree? 9. Lok Adalaths decide the matter on a consent/compromise basis. Lok Adalat is a conciliator body, which facilitates amicable settlement by way of deliberations and negotiations. The endeavor of Lok Adalat is only to see that disputes are narrowed down and if parties arrive at amicable settlement, record such compromise and pass award. Therefore, ordinary Lok Adalat adopts only a conciliatory method and does not decide a dispute, where it settles the dispute on a consent of the parties and moment it passes the award, it becomes functus officio. 10. There is difference between award passed by ordinary Lok Adalath and award passed by Permanent Lok Adalath adopting adjudicatory process. The manifest difference in the provisions relating to awards of Permanent Lok Adalat and ordinary Lok Adalat is not accidental. 10. There is difference between award passed by ordinary Lok Adalath and award passed by Permanent Lok Adalath adopting adjudicatory process. The manifest difference in the provisions relating to awards of Permanent Lok Adalat and ordinary Lok Adalat is not accidental. Therefore, institution of Lok Adalats is at present functioning as voluntary and conciliatory agency and it is innovative mechanism for alternative dispute resolution and the system of Lok Adalats is mainly based on compromise and settlement between the parties. If the parties do not arrive at any compromise or settlement, case is either returned to Court of law or parties are advised to seek remedies in the Court of law. 11. Therefore, what can be inferred is that Lok Adalats are not given power to decide the case on merits, in the event parties failed to arrive at any compromise or settlement. 12. Amendment was brought to the Legal Services Authority Act, to set-up Permanent Lok Adalat, wherein it is vested with jurisdiction to record settlement wherever there is possibility of settlement and in the event, parties to dispute fail to reach agreement, Permanent Lok Adalat can decide the dispute on merits. Unlike Permanent Lok Adalat, Lok Adalath conducted through District Legal Services Authority has no jurisdiction and power of adjudicatory process. Therefore, modification of the compromise recoded in PLC No. 937/2018 is wholly without jurisdiction and the same is not at all sustainable. Once the parties report settlement and award is passed by Lok Adalath, it becomes functus officio and any aggrieved party has to seek redressal of his grievance by approaching a writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If decree is passed based on joint compromise petition, subsequent joint compromise petition could not have been entertained. 13. I have given my anxious consideration to the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondent. This Court has absolutely no cavil to the propositions cited by the learned counsel for the respondent. The judgments cited are not applicable to the present case on hand. 14. For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER: (a) Writ Petition stands allowed. (b) Impugned modified decree dated 17.12.2018 passed in PLC No. 937/2018 by Lok Adalath, Belagavi vide Annexure-D is set-aside.