Permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to order grant of patta, quashes Bikaner PLA order: Raj HC

Jaipur / Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that a Permanent Lok Adalat constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes involving grant of patta, as such matters require determination of title, ownership and proprietary rights and fall outside the limited statutory scope of a Permanent Lok Adalat. The Court held that issuance of patta is not a “public utility service” within the meaning of Sections 22A and 22B of the Act and cannot be directed by a summary forum exercising circumscribed jurisdiction.

The Court further held that although “housing and real estate services” have been included within the definition of public utility services by notification dated February 16, 2016, disputes relating to issuance, cancellation or modification of patta stand on a different footing, as they involve serious civil consequences and adjudication of complex questions of fact and law. Such disputes can be decided only by competent civil or revenue courts following due process of law.

These observations were made by Justice Farjand Ali while allowing a writ petition filed by the Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner, challenging the order dated January 17, 2018 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Bikaner, directing grant of patta in favour of the respondent.

The writ petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order of the Permanent Lok Adalat, which had directed issuance of patta in respect of a plot comprising Khasra Nos. 546 and 547 and had also awarded compensation and costs.

The respondent had approached the Permanent Lok Adalat by filing an application under Section 22B of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, seeking issuance of patta for a plot admeasuring 320 square yards situated at village Kismidesar, Bikaner. It was recorded that the respondent had deposited the entire conversion charges and development fees in accordance with the demand raised by the competent authority and had also executed and submitted the requisite certificate.

The petitioner-Trust, in its reply before the Permanent Lok Adalat, specifically pleaded that the land in question had not been mutated in its favour and that issuance of patta was legally impermissible. Despite this, the Permanent Lok Adalat proceeded to direct issuance of patta and awarded compensation and costs, prompting the Trust to approach the High Court.

Upon examining the statutory framework, the High Court recorded that Permanent Lok Adalats are constituted with a limited and specific object, namely, adjudication of disputes relating to public utility services at a pre-litigation stage, and that their jurisdiction is summary and circumscribed by statute. The Court noted that the legislative intent behind the establishment of Permanent Lok Adalats was to provide an efficacious and expeditious mechanism for resolution of service-related disputes which are essentially consumer-centric and do not involve adjudication of complicated questions of fact or law.

The Court held that issuance of patta is intrinsically a function rooted in revenue administration and involves determination of title, ownership and proprietary rights, which cannot be undertaken by a Permanent Lok Adalat. The Court observed that such questions fall squarely within the domain of civil courts, revenue courts or other competent judicial fora under the relevant enactments, and that the Permanent Lok Adalat cannot assume jurisdiction over such matters under the guise of housing and real estate services.

The High Court further held that the objective of speedy justice cannot be achieved by bypassing legally mandated procedures and that the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 was never intended to supplant regular civil or revenue proceedings or act as a substitute for a properly instituted suit where substantive rights are in question.

Holding that the Permanent Lok Adalat had clearly transgressed the limits of its jurisdiction in directing issuance of patta, the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed and set aside the impugned order dated January 17, 2018. All pending applications were disposed of and no order as to costs was passed.

Case Title
Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner vs Poonam Chand

Case Number
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10251/2019

Court
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jodhpur Bench

Bench
Justice Farjand Ali

Date of Judgment
February 3, 2026

Advocates
For the petitioner: Mr. Rajiv Purohit, Mr. Anupam Jayani
For the respondent: None appeared