IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 123 GREATER MOH PERMANENT LOK ADALAT (PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICES) S NAGAR MOHALI AND ANOTHER CORAM: Present: TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA quashing the award dated 21.03.2025, Annexure P Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), S.A.S. Nagar Application no.48/24 Development Authority ( awarded the compensation in the form of interest for months in allotment of the premises the total amount of sale consideration ( petitioner/GMADA 2. as in terms of P-5, all disputes and differences arising between the parties referred to an independent A IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Versus PERMANENT LOK ADALAT (PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICES) S NAGAR MOHALI AND ANOTHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Mr. Pradeep Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (ORAL) The petition has been filed inter alia quashing the award dated 21.03.2025, Annexure P Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), S.A.S. Nagar pplication no.48/24.01.2024 titled Surjeet Kaur Development Authority (GMADA). The applicant/second respondent was awarded the compensation in the form of interest for in allotment of the premises at the rate of nine per cent per annum on the total amount of sale consideration (₹ GMADA. Learned counsel contends that the as in terms of clause 32 of the allotment letter dated 15. 5, all disputes and differences arising between the parties referred to an independent Arbitrator. No other argument IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-18715-2026 Date of decision: July 01, 2026 ALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (GMADA) ...Petitioner PERMANENT LOK ADALAT (PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICES) S.A.S. ...Respondents TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA inter alia seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the award dated 21.03.2025, Annexure P-1, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), S.A.S. Nagar, in Surjeet Kaur v. Greater Mohali Area . The applicant/second respondent was awarded the compensation in the form of interest for the delay of fifteen at the rate of nine per cent per annum on ₹5 crores) paid by her to the that the award is without jurisdiction lause 32 of the allotment letter dated 15.05.2023, Annexure 5, all disputes and differences arising between the parties have to be No other argument has been raised. , 2026 ...Petitioner . ...Respondents certiorari 1, passed by the in Greater Mohali Area . The applicant/second respondent was of fifteen at the rate of nine per cent per annum on the award is without jurisdiction .2023, Annexure be JASPREET KAUR 2026.07.08 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP-18715-2026 -2- 3. Considering the submissions, this Court finds no ground to entertain the petition. The plea of lack of jurisdiction with the Permanent Lok Adalat to entertain the application under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, was not specifically raised by the petitioner. It is apparent from the award that the application was decided on the following two issues: After the closure of the evidence by the parties, we have gone through the application, reply and the evidence produced on record by the applicant and respondent, there existed an element of settlement in these proceedings and following terms of settlement were framed: 1. Whether the respondent is liable to pay the compensation by way of interest @ 12% p.a. amounting Rs.90,50,000/- on the total amount paid i.e. Rs. five crores, for the period of delay spanning a period of one year, six months and three days as calculated from the date of final payment i.e. 12th November 2021 till the date of allotment i.e. 15th May 2023? 2. Whether the applicant is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment apart from Rs.1,00,000/- as litigation charges? 4. Apparently, the petitioner itself has failed to raise the issue of lack of jurisdiction before the Lok Adalat at the relevant time. Not only that, it did not invoke the arbitration clause any time prior to or soon after filing of the application before the Lok Adalat; instead, the joined settlement proceedings. Besides, the statutory remedy provided under the 1987 Act is not in derogation of any alternate remedy agreed to between the parties under the terms of allotment. This is so in the light of law laid down by the JASPREET KAUR 2026.07.08 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP-18715-2026 -3- Supreme Court in M/s EMAAR MGF Land Limited v. Aftab Singh, (2019) 12 SCC 751. 5. In view thereof, the petition stands dismissed. July 01, 2026 (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) Jaspreet Kaur JUDGE  Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No JASPREET KAUR 2026.07.08 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh