Petitioners challenging a Lok Adalat award alleged they were unfairly omitted as co-sharers. The court noted they were not impleaded and dismissed the application for lack of merit, advising them to seek other remedies.
The application under Article 226 for quashing the compensation award was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11720 of 2013
===========================================================
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
.... .... Respondent/s
=========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Respondent/s : Mr.
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 28-11-2016
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
The petitioners claiming themselves to be co sharers in the
property, which was the subject matter of the impugned award passed by the Lok Adalat in the proceeding in between the respondents, have questioned the legal sustainability of the said award by filing this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
After considering the submissions and perusal of the materials on record, it transpires that these petitioners were not impleaded as parties in the proceeding before the Lok Adalat.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11720 of 2013 dt.28-11-2016
2
However, it is the case of the petitioners that the respondents deliberately omitted to mention their names in the genealogical table produced in the proceeding before the Lok Adalat and also omitted to implead these petitioners as parties. It is thus demonstrably clear that the entire case of the petitioners is dependent upon the determination of the fact of their status as co sharer in the property subject matter of the impugned award. It also goes without saying that as the petitioners were not party in the impugned award which has been passed upon the compromise between the respondents inter-se the same would not be binding upon the right, title and interest of the petitioners in the property in question.
This Court therefore, does not find merit in this application which is, accordingly, dismissed. However, this order shall not prejudice the petitioners to seek the remedy available to them in accordance with law for protecting their right, title and interest in the property as claimed.
(V. Nath, J)
Devendra/-
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a Lok Adalat award inter se respondents can bind non-impleaded co-sharers in the property.
Whether the petitioners were validly impleaded in the proceeding before the Lok Adalat.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kusum Kuer
Vikash Kumar
Bishundei Kuer
Sri Alagu Sah
Rajesh Sah
Urmila Devi
V. Nath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
