Greater Mohali Area Development Authority Vs Permanent Lok Adalat Pus Sas Nagar Mohali and Another — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Greater Mohali Area Development Authority Vs Permanent Lok Adalat Pus Sas Nagar Mohali and Another — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the petition was dismissed and the award of the Permanent Lok Adalat dated 21.03.2025 was not interfered with.

Issue for consideration

Whether the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) is without jurisdiction because, in terms of clause 32 of the allotment letter dated 15.05.2023, all disputes and differences arising between the parties were required to be referred to an independent Arbitrator. +1 more

Court's answer

The petitioner itself failed to raise the issue of lack of jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat at the relevant time before that forum.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner did not invoke the arbitration clause at any time prior to or soon after the filing of the application before the Lok Adalat; instead, it joined the settlement proceedings.

Key takeaways

The statutory remedy provided under the 1987 Act is not in derogation of any alternate remedy agreed to between the parties under the terms of allotment, in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in M/s EMAAR MGF Land Limited v. Aftab Singh, (2019) 12 SCC 751.ratio¶20
Considering the submissions, the Court found no ground to entertain the petition, and in view thereof the petition stood dismissed.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CWP-18715-2026 (decided July 01, 2026) - Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) v. Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), S.A.S. Nagar Mohali and another (Tribhuvan Dahiya, J.). GMADA sought a writ of certiorari to quash the award dated 21.03.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat in Application no.48/24.01.2024, Surjeet Kaur v. GMADA, which had awarded the applicant compensation in the form of interest at nine per cent per annum on the total sale consideration of Rs. 5 crores for a fifteen-month delay in allotment of the premises. Learned counsel for GMADA contended the award was without jurisdiction, since clause 32 of the allotment letter dated 15.05.2023 (Annexure P-5) required all disputes to be referred to an independent Arbitrator. Held, dismissing the petition: the plea of lack of jurisdiction under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 was never specifically raised by GMADA before the Lok Adalat; GMADA never invoked the arbitration clause, instead joining the settlement proceedings; and the statutory remedy under the 1987 Act is not in derogation of any alternate remedy agreed between the parties under the terms of allotment, in the light of M/s EMAAR MGF Land Limited v. Aftab Singh, (2019) 12 SCC 751.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

123

CWP-18715-2026 Date of decision: July 01, 2026

GREATER M OHALI AREA DEVELOPME N T AUTHORITY (GMADA)

...Petitione r

Versus

PERMANE N T LOK ADALAT (PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICES) S.A.S. NAGAR M O HALI AND ANOTHER

...Respondent s

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA

Present: Mr. Pradeep Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (ORAL)

The petition has been filed inte r alia seeking a writ of certiorar i quashing the award dated 21.03.2025, A nnexure P-1, passed by th e Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), S.A.S. Nagar, i n Application no.48/24.01.2024 titled Surjee t Kaur v. Greater Mohali Are a Developmen t Authority (GMADA) . The a p plicant/second respondent wa s awarded the compensation in the form of i nterest for the delay of fiftee n months in al l otment of the premises at the ra t e of nine per cent per annum o n the total a m ount of sale consideration ( ₹ 5 crores) paid by her to th e petitioner/G M ADA. 2. Learned counsel contends that t he award is without jurisdictio n as in terms o f clause 32 of the allotment le t ter dated 15.05.2023, Annexur e P-5, all dis p utes and differences arising b etween the parties have to b e referred to a n independent Arbitrator. No other argument has been raised.

JASPREET KAUR 2026.07.08 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CWP-18715-2026

-2-

Considering the submissions, this Court finds no ground to entertain the petition. The plea of lack of jurisdiction with the Permanent Lok Adalat to entertain the application under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, was not specifically raised by the petitioner. It is apparent from the award that the application was decided on the following two issues:

After the closure of the evidence by the parties, we have gone through the application, reply and the evidence produced on record by the applicant and respondent, there existed an element of settlement in these proceedings and following terms of settlement were framed:

Whether the respondent is liable to pay the compensation by way of interest @ 12% p.a. amounting Rs.90,50,000/- on the total amount paid i.e. Rs. five crores, for the period of delay spanning a period of one year, six months and three days as calculated from the date of final payment i.e. 12^th November 2021 till the date of allotment i.e. 15^th May 2023?

Whether the applicant is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment apart from Rs.1,00,000/- as litigation charges?

Apparently, the petitioner itself has failed to raise the issue of lack of jurisdiction before the Lok Adalat at the relevant time. Not only that, it did not invoke the arbitration clause any time prior to or soon after filing of the application before the Lok Adalat; instead, the joined settlement proceedings. Besides, the statutory remedy provided under the 1987 Act is not in derogation of any alternate remedy agreed to between the parties under the terms of allotment. This is so in the light of law laid down by the

JASPREET KAUR 2026.07.08 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

-3-

CWP-18715-2026

Supreme Court in M/s EMAAR MGF Land Limited v. Aftab Singh , (2019) 12

SCC 751.

5. In view thereof, the petition stands dismissed.

July 01, 2026 (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) Jaspreet Kaur JUDGE  Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

JASPREET KAUR 2026.07.08 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh