The Rajasthan High Court has held that a Permanent Lok Adalat does not have the legal authority to adjudicate disputes concerning the issuance of pattas or title deeds to land, and consequently quashed a Lok Adalat order that purported to decide such a matter. The High Court observed that matters involving the issuance of pattas, including determination of land title, ownership and proprietary rights, raise serious civil and property law questions that require full-fledged adjudication in an appropriate civil or revenue forum rather than in a Lok Adalat. In reaching this conclusion, the Court underscored that a Lok Adalat, including a Permanent Lok Adalat constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, functions primarily as a forum for alternative dispute resolution where parties can amicably settle and compromise disputes that are suitable for such settlement. While Lok Adalats are empowered to make awards which are deemed decrees of a civil court and are final and binding on the parties, their jurisdiction does not extend to matters involving determination of substantive legal rights over property or title, which necessitate formal adjudication and evidence evaluation in courts having statutory competence.
The dispute before the High Court arose from an order passed by a Permanent Lok Adalat in Bikaner that directed issuance of a patta to a private individual in respect of certain land, and also included directions as to compensation. The Urban Improvement Trust (UIT) challenged the Lok Adalat order before the High Court, contending that a Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to deal with land title issues or to grant pattas, as such matters involve proprietary rights and the determination of competing claims of entitlement that cannot be resolved merely by compromise. The High Court agreed with the UIT’s contention, noting that a patta relates to legal ownership and proprietary interest in immovable property, and such rights are determined through a statutory process that involves considerations of mutation, title documentation and other civil and revenue law principles. According to the High Court, the statutory framework surrounding Lok Adalats does not confer the power to resolve such matters because a Lok Adalat cannot supplant the jurisdiction of ordinary civil and revenue courts in resolving complex title disputes that require adjudicatory functions including assessment of evidence, legal interpretation and substantive findings.
In its judgment, the High Court clarified that while Lok Adalats serve an important role in achieving speedy and amicable settlements of disputes that are suitable for compromise and do not involve serious questions of proprietary rights, they are not substitutes for adjudication in matters where statutory adjudicatory processes must be followed. The Court observed that Lok Adalats are designed to facilitate compromise and settlement in cases where parties agree, and their awards have the effect of a civil court decree, but this does not confer on them the power to determine title to property or issue legally enforceable pattas. Disputes involving land ownership and title, the Court noted, require careful examination of documentary evidence and application of substantive civil law principles, and therefore fall outside the scheme of alternative dispute resolution envisioned for Lok Adalats.
The High Court emphasized that allowing Lok Adalats to decide patta issuance or property title disputes would be contrary to the statutory limits of their jurisdiction as delineated by the Legal Services Authorities Act. The Act envisages Lok Adalats as fora for settlement and compromise of disputes where contentious issues can be resolved with mutual consent, particularly in cases eligible for such resolution by virtue of being civil, compoundable or otherwise suitable for compromise. However, disputes centering on proprietary rights and land titles cannot be resolved through mere compromise as they affect third-party rights and involve legal controversies that must be adjudicated by courts vested with appropriate jurisdiction and procedural mandates.
By quashing the Lok Adalat’s order, the High Court reaffirmed the principle that jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalats is limited to disputes which can lawfully be resolved through settlement and compromise, and that adjudication of title to immovable property, including issuance of patta, falls within the exclusive domain of civil and revenue courts. The Court’s decision underscores the necessity of preserving the integrity of statutory adjudicatory processes for matters involving substantive legal rights and reinforces the limits of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms like Lok Adalats when confronted with disputes that require formal judicial determination of ownership and title. The order requires that such disputes be taken up in competent courts in accordance with established civil and revenue procedures, thereby ensuring that parties’ rights to due process and thorough legal adjudication are upheld.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.