Case Background
This case arises from a long-standing dispute over ancestral land in Brahampur, District Buxar. The appellant claimed that the property was his ancestral land, originally purchased through a registered sale deed sometime in 1924.
Over the years, the names of the appellant’s ancestors, and later the appellant himself, were mutated and recorded in the revenue records. According to the appellant, respondent no. 6 had earlier tried during survey operations to get the appellant’s name removed from these records.
That attempt, as per the appellant, failed when the Deputy Director, Consolidation passed an order sometime in 2008. This order, according to the appellant, gave finality to his title and ensured that his name continued in the records, without his ownership being disturbed.
However, a separate title suit, Title Suit No. 454 of 2002, was filed by respondent no. 6. The appellant was not made a party to that suit, though he says he was a necessary party. Instead, respondent no. 13 was impleaded in that case.
The dispute in that title suit was referred to the Lok Adalat. On 30 August 2003, a compromise was recorded before the Lok Adalat and an award was passed. According to the appellant, this compromise was collusive and directly and substantially affected his title in the land, yet he was not even informed or made a party.
After this compromise award, respondent nos. 6 and 13 began asserting rights over the land on the strength of the consent decree arising from the Lok Adalat award. Once the appellant came to know of this, he approached the Patna High Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 2395 of 2009. In that writ petition, he sought to set aside the Lok Adalat award.
On 24 February 2009, a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court dismissed the writ petition. The Single Judge observed that the appellant could seek appropriate relief by filing a title suit. Acting on that direction, a civil suit was later filed by the appellant, and a petition for withdrawal of that suit was also filed long ago.
Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal No. 665 of 2018 challenging the 2009 order. The core grievance was that he had been wrongly pushed to the civil court despite a statutory bar on challenging Lok Adalat awards in civil proceedings.
What the Court Examined and Decided
In this Letters Patent Appeal, the Division Bench of the Patna High Court, led by Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy, heard arguments from both sides. The main question was whether the appellant should have been relegated to file a title suit when the dispute involved an award of a Lok Adalat.
The appellant’s counsel, led by a Senior Advocate, urged the Court to enter into the merits of the land dispute and the alleged fraud in the compromise. However, the Bench chose first to examine the legal framework governing Lok Adalat awards, particularly Section 22E of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
Section 22E of the Act deals with the effect of awards made by Permanent Lok Adalats. Sub-section (1) states that every award made by a Permanent Lok Adalat, either on the merits or on the basis of a settlement, is final and binding on all parties and on persons claiming under them. Sub-section (2) provides that such an award is to be treated as a decree of a civil court. Sub-section (4), which the Bench emphasised, declares that every such award shall be final and shall not be called in question in any original suit, application, or execution proceeding.
Relying on this, the Bench held that sending the appellant to the civil court to challenge, directly or indirectly, the Lok Adalat award was contrary to the statute. If a Lok Adalat award cannot be questioned in an original suit, then directing an affected person to file a fresh title suit effectively deprives him of any remedy.
The Court stated clearly that a party cannot be rendered remediless, especially where fraud is alleged. There was no dispute that in Title Suit No. 454 of 2002, which resulted in the compromise before the Lok Adalat, the appellant was not impleaded. Yet, the award substantially and directly affected his title.
Even assuming, as argued by the respondents, that the compromise took place before the trial court and the Lok Adalat only approved it, the finality of the Lok Adalat’s award still operated. The Lok Adalat award had given effect to the compromise and had, in that process, affected the appellant’s claimed rights in the property.
The respondents’ counsel argued that the award was essentially a decree of the civil court and therefore should be challenged by way of a title suit. The Bench rejected this approach. It reasoned that once the Act declares that an award of a Permanent Lok Adalat is final and cannot be challenged in an original suit, the High Court cannot, in fairness or in law, force a person to approach the civil court to undo such an award.
The Bench then turned to a Supreme Court judgment cited by the respondents: State of Punjab & Anr. v. Jalour Singh & Ors., reported in (2008) 2 SCC 660. Paragraph 12 of that judgment was relied upon by the respondents to argue that the only remedy against a Lok Adalat award was limited.
In paragraph 12 of Jalour Singh, the Supreme Court had clarified that where an award is made by the Lok Adalat in terms of a settlement duly signed by the parties and annexed to the award, it is final, binding, and executable as a civil court decree, and no appeal lies against it. The Supreme Court also noted that if a party wants to challenge such an award, it can do so only by filing a petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution, and even then, only on very limited grounds.
The Division Bench of the Patna High Court carefully analysed this paragraph. It observed that the respondents had read only a part of it and misunderstood its scope. The Supreme Court’s decision in Jalour Singh did not suggest that a third party, whose rights are seriously affected by a Lok Adalat award, must remain without remedy.
Instead, the Supreme Court had underlined that the award binds the parties to the settlement, and the only way to challenge it is through writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 or 227. There is no bar, in principle, on a person affected by such an award, even if not a party to the original proceedings, seeking the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court.
The Patna High Court, therefore, held that if parties to a Lok Adalat proceeding cannot be left without a remedy, then a third party whose rights are substantially and directly affected by that award also cannot be rendered helpless. Since no suit or proceeding can be maintained in any court against a Lok Adalat award, the only available remedy to correct any illegality or fraud is to approach the High Court under Article 227.
The Bench clearly stated that the appellant had a right to contest the Lok Adalat award under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge, by declining to entertain the writ and asking the appellant to file a title suit, failed to appreciate this legal position and the statutory bar under Section 22E(4) of the 1987 Act.
In these circumstances, the Division Bench concluded that the Single Judge’s order dated 24 February 2009 in C.W.J.C. No. 2395 of 2009 was unsustainable. The judgment was set aside, and the writ petition was restored to the file.
The Court further observed that the appellant had indeed filed a civil suit in obedience to the Single Judge’s earlier direction and that a petition for withdrawal of that suit had already been filed long back. The Division Bench clarified that it would not be proper to allow two parallel proceedings to continue. Therefore, the appellant would be required to withdraw the civil suit, if not already withdrawn.
To protect the subject property until the writ is finally decided, the Bench directed that status quo in respect of the land or property in question must be maintained till the disposal of the writ petition by the Single Judge.
The Court also noted that the original records of the writ petition had been destroyed because of the passage of time. However, a photocopy of the writ petition was available on record. The Registry was directed to reconstruct the file based on the available materials before placing it before the learned Single Judge.
With these directions, the Letters Patent Appeal was disposed of. All interlocutory applications also stood disposed of accordingly.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for people whose land rights are affected by compromises or awards made in Lok Adalats without their knowledge or participation. It makes clear that such people are not without remedy.
The Patna High Court has clarified that when a Lok Adalat award is final and cannot be challenged in a civil suit, the affected person can go directly to the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Courts cannot simply send them back to the civil courts.
For landowners, especially in rural areas where compromises may be recorded without all necessary parties, this decision provides a clear path to challenge Lok Adalat awards that are alleged to be fraudulent or collusive.
The judgment also reinforces that courts must respect the statutory bar under Section 22E(4) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, and cannot ignore it by asking parties to file fresh suits. It thus balances the finality of Lok Adalat awards with the need to prevent injustice and fraud.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Can a person whose title is directly affected by a Lok Adalat award, in a suit where he was not a party, be forced to challenge it only through a fresh title suit in the civil court?
Answer: No. Because Section 22E(4) of the 1987 Act bars challenge to a Lok Adalat award in any original suit, the proper remedy is to approach the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. - Issue: Does the Supreme Court decision in Jalour Singh prevent a third party from challenging a Lok Adalat award affecting his rights?
Answer: No. Jalour Singh only states that parties to a Lok Adalat award can challenge it under Articles 226/227. It does not render a third party, whose rights are substantially affected, remediless. - Issue: Was the learned Single Judge right in dismissing the writ petition and directing the appellant to file a title suit?
Answer: No. The Division Bench held that this direction ignored the statutory bar on filing suits against Lok Adalat awards and wrongly deprived the appellant of his right to seek relief under Article 227.
Cases Cited by the Court
- State of Punjab & Anr. v. Jalour Singh & Ors., (2008) 2 SCC 660
Case Details
Case Number: Letters Patent Appeal No. 665 of 2018 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2395 of 2009
Case Title: Rameshwar Chaubey v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2025(3) PLJR 352
Coram: Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy
Date of Judgment: 20-03-2025
Advocates:
- For the Appellant: Mr. Kamal Nayan Choubey, Sr. Advocate; Mr. Rakesh Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate; Mr. Dineshwar Pandey, Advocate; Mr. Shashank Shekhar Dubey, Advocate
- For the Respondents: Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam, AAG-12; Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
Nature of the Case: Letters Patent Appeal arising out of dismissal of a writ petition (C.W.J.C.) challenging a Lok Adalat award affecting land title
Link to Judgment: Patna High Court Judgment
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
