- (1.) The petitioner challenges the decision of the Permanent Lok Adalat that has passed the order against the petitioner, which the petitioner claims as ex-parte, in terms of which, the the Permanent Lok Adalat has declared the respondents No. 2 and 3 as owners of the property. It has directed the HUDA and other public authorities to mutate the names of respondents No. 2 and 3.
(2.) The assumption of jurisdiction by the Permanent Lok Adalat itself is erroneous. A civil suit appears to have been instituted before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, for declaration of title in relation to the property and other consequential reliefs. On the application of the plaintiff, it appears that the case had been transferred before the Permanent Lok Adalat and the decree has been granted. The order is erroneous. The Permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to declare title of the property in dispute between private individuals. The Public Utility Service that is contemplated under Section 22-A does not extend to an assertion of title by one and denied by another. The Permanent Lok Adalat has no power to take cognizance of the cases other than what are mentioned in 22-C. The dispute must relate to only the subjects, which are enumerated under Section 22-A (b).
(3.) The award of the Permanent Lok Adalat is without jurisdiction and I quash the same. If respondents No. 2 and 3 will claim any right to the property under an alleged unregistered release, the validity of such a document and the scope of devolution of any right under the document could only be examined in appropriately instituted civil suit and the Permanent Lok Adalat will not treat itself as a civil court for rendering a decision in the manner it has done.;