JUDGMENT : Since both these writ applications arise out of a common award dated 31.07.2024 passed by the Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat, Gumla in PLA Case No.123/2023; as such, both were heard together and being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner of W.P.(C) No.5179 of 2024 has challenged the aforesaid award on the ground that the same is without jurisdiction. On the contrary, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5372 of 2024 has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities as to why the compensation amount of Rs.57,02,871/-which has been awarded by the Permanent Lok Adalat has not been paid to him. 3. The brief facts which gave rise to both these litigations is that the petitioner of W.P.(C) No.5372 of 2024 - Nand Kishor Singh, had filed an application against the petitioner namely, Ramdhari Singh [petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5179 of 2024] before the Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat under Section 22C of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 at Gumla, for settlement of dispute regarding payment of compensation amount in connection with widening of National Highway, Road No.23, whereby NHAI acquired the land of both the petitioners, who were co-sharers and awarded the compensation in the name of Nand Kishor Singh and other co-sharer and the petitioner-Ramdhari Singh wanted to receive the said awarded compensation amount whereas, his father Laxmi Kant Singh had no share in partition. Hence, an application before the Permanent Lok Adalat was preferred by Nand Kishor Singh being PLA Case No.123/2023. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5179 of 2024 is that the Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat, Gumla had signed the Award beyond jurisdiction, inasmuch as, the value of the property in question for which compensation has been awarded, is more than Rupees Ten lakhs. 5. Thus the only issue involved in both these writ applications is as: Whether the Award passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat is without jurisdiction or not ? To decide the issue, it is necessary to scrutinize Section 22C of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 which deals with the cognizance of cases by Permanent Lok Adalat. For brevity, the same is quoted hereinbelow: “22-C. Cognizance of cases by Permanent Lok Adalat . To decide the issue, it is necessary to scrutinize Section 22C of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 which deals with the cognizance of cases by Permanent Lok Adalat. For brevity, the same is quoted hereinbelow: “22-C. Cognizance of cases by Permanent Lok Adalat . – (1) Any party to a dispute may, before the dispute is brought before any Court, make an application to the Permanent Lok Adalat for the settlement of dispute: Provided that the Permanent Lok Adalat shall not have jurisdiction in respect of any matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law: Provided further that the Permanent Lok Adalat shall also not have jurisdiction in the matter where the value of the property in dispute exceeds ten lakh rupees; Provided also that the Central Government, may, by notification, increase the limit of *ten lakh rupees specified in the second proviso in consultation with the Central Authority. (2) After an application is made under sub-section (1) to the Permanent Lok Adalat, no party to that application shall invoke jurisdiction of any Court in the same dispute. (3) Where an application is made to a Permanent Lok Adalat under sub- section (1), it- (a) shall direct each party to the application to file before it a written statement, stating therein the facts and nature of dispute under the application, points or issues in such dispute and grounds relied in support of, or in opposition to, such points or issues, as the case may be, and such party may supplement such statement with any document and other evidence which such party deems appropriate in proof of such facts and grounds and shall send a copy of such statement together with a copy of such document and other evidence, if any, to each of the parties to the application; (b) may require any party to the application to file additional statement before it at any stage of the conciliation proceedings; (c) shall communicate any document or statement received by it from any party to the application to the other party, to enable such other party to present reply thereto. (4) When statement, additional statement and reply, if any, have been filed under sub-section (3) to the satisfaction of the Permanent Lok Adalat, it shall conduct conciliation proceedings between the parties to the application in such manner as it thinks appropriate taking into account the circumstances of the dispute. (4) When statement, additional statement and reply, if any, have been filed under sub-section (3) to the satisfaction of the Permanent Lok Adalat, it shall conduct conciliation proceedings between the parties to the application in such manner as it thinks appropriate taking into account the circumstances of the dispute. (5) The Permanent Lok Adalat shall, during conduct of conciliation proceedings under sub-section (4), assist the parties in their attempt to reach an amicable settlement of the dispute in an independent and impartial mariner. (6) It shall be the duty of every party to the application to cooperate in good faith with the Permanent Lok Adalat in conciliation of the dispute relating to the application and to comply with the direction of the Permanent Lok Adalat to produce evidence and other related documents before it. (7) When a Permanent Lok Adalat, in the aforesaid conciliation proceedings, is of opinion that there exist elements of settlement in such proceedings which may be acceptable to the parties, it may formulate the terms of a possible settlement of the dispute and give to the parties concerned for their observations and in case the parties reach at an agreement on the settlement of the dispute, they shall sign the settlement agreement and the Permanent Lok Adalat shall pass an award in terms thereof and furnish a copy of the same to each of the parties concerned. (8) Where the parties fail to reach at an agreement under sub-section (7), the Permanent Lok Adalat shall, if the dispute does not relate to any offence, decide the dispute.” Emphasis Supplied 6. After going through Section 22C; the second proviso clearly indicates that Permanent Lok Adalat shall not have jurisdiction in the matter where the value of the property in dispute exceeds ten lakh rupees. 7. Admittedly, the amount awarded by the Permanent Lok Adalat is with regard to property in question and the amount awarded is much more than the prescribed limit. 8. As a matter of fact, the Permanent Lok Adalat in the very second paragraph has mentioned the amount of the property in question for which the application was filed as Rs.25,20,208/-(Rupees Twenty-Five Lakh Twenty Thousand Two Hundred and Eight). Thus, on this ground itself, the Permanent Lok Adalat acted beyond its jurisdiction. 9. 8. As a matter of fact, the Permanent Lok Adalat in the very second paragraph has mentioned the amount of the property in question for which the application was filed as Rs.25,20,208/-(Rupees Twenty-Five Lakh Twenty Thousand Two Hundred and Eight). Thus, on this ground itself, the Permanent Lok Adalat acted beyond its jurisdiction. 9. It further transpires from the impugned Award, that an objection was filed by the petitioner Ramdhari Singh [W.P.(C) No.5179 of 2024]; however, the Permanent Lok Adalat went upon to adjudicate the same; whereas, Sub-Section 7 of Section 22C clearly indicates that if in the conciliation proceeding, the Permanent Lok Adalat is of the opinion that there exists elements of settlement in such proceedings, which may be acceptable to the parties, it may formulate the terms of possible settlement of dispute and give the parties concerned for their observations and in case the parties reach at an agreement on the settlement of the dispute, they shall sign the settlement agreement. 10. In the instant case, even this provision has not been followed by the Permanent Lok Adalat rather bypassed, inasmuch as, the objection filed by the petitioner - Nand Kishor Singh was adjudicated and finally the Award has been signed; as such, this Court is having no hesitation in holding that the impugned Award dated 31.07.2024 passed by the Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat, Gumla in PLA Case No.123/2023 is beyond jurisdiction and hence, it is quashed and set aside. 11. At this stage, it is also necessary to observe that since the land in question has been acquired under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 for widening of NH 23 Palmau-Gumla section, henceforth, all agitations/disputes with regard to apportionment of award or regarding the title dispute is to be adjudicated/referred as per the provisions of The National Highways Act, 1956 and the dispute, if any, is to be adjudicated by the Court or Authority as referred in Section 3H of The National Highways Act, 1956. For brevity, the same is quoted hereinbelow: “3H. For brevity, the same is quoted hereinbelow: “3H. Deposit and payment of amount.— (1) The amount determined under section 3G shall be deposited by the Central Government in such manner as may be laid down by rules made in this behalf by that Government, with the competent authority before taking possession of the land (2) As soon as may be after the amount has been deposited under sub-section(1), the competent authority shall on behalf of the Central Government pay the amount to the person or persons entitled thereto. (3) Where several persons claim to be interested in the amount deposited under sub-section (1), the competent authority shall determine the persons who in its opinion are entitled to receive the amount payable to each of them. (4) If any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the principal civil court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated. (5) Where the amount determined under section 3G by the arbitrator is in excess of the amount determined by the competent authority, the arbitrator may award interest at nine per cent. per annum on such excess amount from the date of taking possession under section 3D till the date of the actual deposit thereof. (6) Where the amount determined by the arbitrator is in excess of the amount determined by the competent authority, the excess amount together with interest, if any, awarded under sub-section (5) shall be deposited by the Central Government in such manner as may be laid down by rules made in this behalf by that Government, with the competent authority and the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (4) shall apply to such deposit.” 12. By going through the aforesaid provision, it is clear that Sub-Section (3) of section 3H clearly provides that where persons claim to be interested in the amount deposited under Sub-Section (1), the competent authority shall determine the process who in its opinion are entitled to receive the amount payable to each of them and Sub-Section (4) says that if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of a Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within the limit of whose jurisdiction the land is situated. 13. Thus, in the factual scenario of this Case, the parties to the dispute shall approach the competent authority, who shall determine the lis and what amount is to be payable to whom. 14. With the aforesaid observations, the writ application being W.P.(C) No.5179 of 2024 stands allowed and W.P.(C) No.5372 of 2024 is dismissed in the manner as indicated hereinabove.