Mootham, C.J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal from an order of a learned single Judge dated the 8th February, 1955, dismissing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The circumstances in which that petition was filed are these: The first Respondent had sold two plots of land to the Appellant and a dispute arose between them as to the balance of the purchase -price payable by the Appellant to the first Respondent. The first Respondent claimed Rs. 1,700/ - and interest, whereas the Appellant admitted liability only in the sum of Rs. 340.
(2.) ON the 23rd September, 1949, the Appellant and the first Respondent agreed to refer the dispute to the Panchayati Adalat of Bat hari, the third Respondent, for decision. The Panchayati Adalat appears to have heard the evidence of both parties, and on the 12th March, 1950, it passed a decree in favour of the first Respondent for the sum of Rs. 2,077. The Appellant made an application in revision to the Munsif but that was dismissed on the 20th July, 1950. He then filed an application in revision in this Court Under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure but that also was dismissed on the 16th July, 1953. He thereupon filed the petition out of which this appeal arises. The sole point we have to consider is the meaning and effect of Section 82 of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, as it stood immediately prior to its amendment by Act II of 1955. Section 82 then read as follows: Special jurisdiction in matters compromised etc. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, it shall be lawful for a Panchayati Adalat to decide any civil or revenue dispute arising in its local area and not pending in any court in accordance with any settlement, compromise or oath agreed upon by the parties and likewise decide a case if compoundable.
(3.) THE case for the Appellant is that under this section the jurisdiction of the Panchayati Adalat was restricted to passing a decree, in so far as it could legally do so, in accordance with such settlement, compromise or agreement as had already been reached by the parties. This view did not however commend itself to the learned single Judge who was of opinion that this was too narrow an interpretation to be placed upon the language of the section which in his opinion conferred upon a Panchayati Adalat jurisdiction to decide upon the merits any dispute of the nature referred to in Section 82 which might be referred to it by the parties.;