The High Court of Jharkhand has ruled that the Permanent Lok Adalat does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes regarding the payment or apportionment of compensation for land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956. The Division Bench held that such disputes do not fall within the definition of “public utility service” under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
In the case of Nand Kishor Singh vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. (L.P.A. No. 98 of 2025), the Court declared the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat as quorum non-judice (without jurisdiction) and directed the Competent Authority to refer the dispute to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction.
Background of the Case
The litigation arose from the acquisition of land for the widening of National Highway-23 (NH-23). The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) acquired land belonging to the appellant, Nand Kishor Singh, and the respondent no. 7, Ramdhari Singh, who are co-sharers.
The compensation was initially awarded in the name of Nand Kishor Singh and other co-sharers. However, Ramdhari Singh claimed a share of the compensation, contending that his father had received no share in the partition.
Nand Kishor Singh approached the Permanent Lok Adalat, Gumla, under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, for the settlement of the dispute. Ramdhari Singh contested this, arguing that the Permanent Lok Adalat lacked jurisdiction as the value of the property exceeded Rupees Ten Lakhs.
A Single Judge Bench (Writ Court) accepted the respondent’s contention, setting aside the Permanent Lok Adalat’s order and directing the parties to approach the competent authority. Nand Kishor Singh challenged this order before the Division Bench in the present Letters Patent Appeal.
Arguments of the Parties
Representing the appellant, Advocate Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo argued that the judgment of the Writ Court was erroneous. He contended that at the time of adjudication, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat had been enhanced from Rupees Ten Lakhs to Rupees One Crore. Therefore, he argued, the Permanent Lok Adalat had the requisite jurisdiction to pass the award in favor of the appellant.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajesh Shankar, rejected the appellant’s contention regarding the pecuniary limit. Instead, the Court focused on the subject-matter jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat.
The Court examined Sections 22-A and 22-B of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, which define the scope of “Permanent Lok Adalats” and “public utility services.” Section 22-A lists services such as transport, postal, supply of power, public conservancy, hospital services, and insurance as “public utility services.”
The Bench observed that the dispute regarding land acquisition compensation raised by the appellant did not fall within any of these categories. The Court observed:
“In view of the aforesaid provisions, the dispute raised by the appellant herein does not fall within the definition of ‘public utility service’ and therefore, the ‘Permanent Lok Adalat’ was not vested with any jurisdiction to take cognizance of such cases under Section 22-C of the Act, 1987.”
Consequently, the Court held that the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat was “quorum non-judice and, therefore, nullity in the eyes of law.”
Decision and Directions
While upholding the Writ Court’s decision to set aside the Permanent Lok Adalat’s award, the Division Bench issued a clarification regarding the procedure to be followed for resolving the dispute.
The Court identified the “competent authority” under Section 3(a) of the National Highways Act, 1956, as the District Land Acquisition Officer, Gumla.
Citing Section 3-H of the National Highways Act, 1956, the Court directed that since there is a dispute regarding the apportionment of compensation, the matter must be referred to the Civil Court. The Bench directed:
“…the competent authority, on receipt on an application by either of the parties i.e., the appellant or the respondent no. 7, as the case may be, shall refer the dispute to the decision of a Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated i.e., Gumla.”
The appeal was disposed of with this modification to the Writ Court’s order dated December 6, 2024.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Nand Kishor Singh vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
- Case Number: L.P.A. No. 98 of 2025
- Coram: Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajesh Shankar
- Counsel for Appellant: Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo
- Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Piyush Chitresh (AC to AG), Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Pandey (CGC), Mrs. Sweety Topno, Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, Mr. Arun Kumar
