Ashok Bhushan, J. - (1.) -Heard Sri S. K. Pundir, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
(2.) BY these two writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 13.6.2003 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Saharanpur and the order dated 13.5.2002 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation in Appeal No. 278 of 1933 under Section 11 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. Both the writ petitions have been filed challenging same orders and reference of facts of Writ Petition No. 28712 of 2003 are sufficient to decide both the petitions. An objection under Section 9A (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (herein referred to as the Act) was filed by the petitioner claiming recording his name over plot Nos. 362, 351 and 352 which were Matrook in basic year records. The objection under Section 9A (2) filed by the petitioner was referred to the lok adalat constituted under the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The Consolidation Officer while functioning as lok adalat allowed the objection vide order dated 29.1.1994. The claim of the petitioner under Section 122 (B) (4F) of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, was accepted, a belated appeal was filed by the Gaon Sabha against the order dated 29.1.1994 passed by the Consolidation Officer in lok adalat before S.O.C. An objection was raised by the petitioner regarding maintainability of the appeal. The petitioner contended before Settlement Officer of Consolidation that order passed in lok adalat is final and no appeal can be filed against the said order under U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation passed an order dated 13.5.2002 holding the appeal is maintainable and fixed the date for hearing of the appeal on merit. Against the order dated 13.5.2002 petitioner filed a revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation which revision has been rejected by the order dated 13.6.2003 by the Deputy Director of Consolidation taking the view that the revision having been filed against interlocutory order, the revision is not maintainable. Counsel for the petitioner, challenging the orders of Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 13.5.2002 and the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 13.6.2003, contended that the appeal filed by the respondents against the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation is not maintainable, reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on Section 21 (2) of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Counsel for the petitioner further contended that before the lok adalat, even pradhan appeared and objected the possession of the petitioner.
(3.) THE question, which has arisen for determination is as to whether the appeal filed by the respondents against the order dated 29.1.1994, passed by the Consolidation Officer was maintainable. For deciding the aforesaid question, it is necessary to consider the jurisdiction of the lok adalat and the nature of orders, which are passed by lok adalat. The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred 1987 Act) was enacted to provide free and competent Legal Services to the weaker section of the Society. Section 19 of the Act deals with organisation of the lok adalat which is quoted as below : "19. Organisation of lok adalats.-(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee of every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluk Legal Services Committee may organise lok adalats at such interval and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit. (2) Every lok adalat organised for an area shall consist of such number of : (a) Serving or retired judicial officers ; and (b) Other persons. Of the area as may be specified by the State Authority or the District Authority of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or the High Court Services Committee, or as the case may be, the Taluk Legal Services Committee, organising such lok adalat. (3) The experience and qualifications of other persons referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (2) for lok adalats organised by the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of India. (4) The experience and qualifications of other persons referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (2) for lok adalats other than referred to in sub-section (3) shall be such as may be prescribed by the State Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court. (5) A lok adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of : (i) any case pending before ; or (ii) any matter which is falling within the jurisdiction of, and is not brought before, any court for which the lok adalat is organised ; Provided that the lok adalat shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any case or matter relating to on offence not compoundable under any law." Sub-section (5) of Section 19 provides that a lok adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute. Sub-section (5) indicates that the jurisdiction of the lok adalat is to arrive at compromise or settlement.;