HONOURABLE JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
WRIT PETITION No.29616 of 2021
ORDER: (per Hon'ble Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha)
To quash the award dated 08.4.2008 that was passed by the
District Legal Services Authority, Ranga Reddy, under Section 21 of
the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, in O.S.No.91 of 2008 that
stood pending on the file of the Court of II Additional District Judge,
Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar and consequently, to declare the
proceedings No.B/1195/2008, dated 20.6.2008, that was issued by
respondent No.3 as illegal and void, and further, to direct respondent
No.3 to mutate the property to an extent of Acs.12-35 guntas in Survey No.241 and an extent of Acs.6-19 guntas in Survey No.109 (totalling Acs.19-14 guntas) of Singapur Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in the record of rights in his favour, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. The averments in the supporting affidavit, in brief, are that one S.Narender Reddy executed an Agreement of sale-cum-Irrevocable General Power of Attorney (AGPA) with possession in respect of two properties, one being the property in Survey No.241 to an extent of Acs.12.35 guntas and the second being the property in Survey No.109 to an extent of Acs.6-19 guntas of Singapur Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in favour of one S.Pavan Kumar Jain and K.S.Prakash Rao and registered the same, and thereafter, the said WP.No.29616 of 2021 2 AGAP holders executed an unregistered sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 05.6.2010 and handed over the possession of the said properties to him and thereafter, the said unregistered sale deed was validated by the District Registrar and Collector of Ranga Reddy District on 09.9.2019 and thus, the petitioner became the owner of the said properties and that, on 14.7.2020, the petitioner moved an application before respondent No.3 seeking to mutate the said properties in his favour, but there was no response and that, on persuasion with different authorities, he was surprised and shocked to notice the mischief and fraud committed by the unofficial respondents in connivance and collusion with each other.
3. It is stated that an unregistered sale deed dated 12.01.1977 was fabricated, a suit in O.S.No.91 of 2008 was filed and an award was passed by the Lok Adalat on 08.4.2008 and indeed, respondent Nos.15 and 16 were minors by the time of execution of the said sale deed and they were not represented by anyone and that, his vendor-S.Narender Reddy was not a party either to the sale deed dated 12.01.1977 or to the suit in O.S.No.91 of 2008 or to the award passed by the Lok Adalat and therefore, he had no occasion to know the fraud and in these circumstances, the award passed by the Lok Adalat is per se illegal, void and nonest and hence, by quashing the said award, the consequential reliefs sought for have to be granted.
4. Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. Contending that the award passed by the District Legal Services Authority, Ranga Reddy in O.S.No.91 of 2008 pending on the file of WP.No.29616 of 2021 3 the Court of II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, is illegal and therefore, it has to be set aside, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the lawful owner and possessor of the subject matter of the writ, which is an extent of Acs.19.14 guntas located in Survey Nos.109 and 241 of Singapur Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and the petitioner purchased the same from the AGPA holders through an unregistered sale deed in the year 2010 and the said unregistered sale deed was validated in the year 2019 and thus, the petitioner perfected his right and title over the said property and that, on obtaining the sale deed, the petitioner submitted an application to respondent No.3 on 14.7.2020 requesting him to mutate the said property in the record of rights in his name, but his request was not considered and thereafter, on enquiry, the petitioner came to know that an unregistered sale deed was fabricated in the year 1977 as if the said property was sold by its lawful owners as on that day to third parties and more surprised is that, basing on the said sale deed, a suit was filed and thereafter, the parties to the suit entered into compromise and the said compromise was recorded and an award was passed by the Lok Adalat to that effect and thus, all the proceedings that went on behind the back of the rightful owner of the property-S.Narender Reddy, from whom the petitioner derived title, are illegal and are vitiated by fraud and thus, this Court should interfere to protect the interests of the petitioner.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the judgments and decrees obtained by fraud have to be declared as null WP.No.29616 of 2021 4 and void and as per the catena of decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as various High Courts, challenge of an award passed by the Lok Adalat can be done by filing a Writ Petition invoking Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India by the aggrieved and as such, the present Writ Petition is maintainable.
7. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhargavi Constructions and another Vs. Kothakapu Muthyam1 wherein his Lordship at paras 25 to 28 held as follows:-
"25. The question arose before this Court (Three Judge Bench) in the case of State of Punjab (supra) as to what is the remedy available to the person aggrieved of the award passed by the Lok Adalat under Section 20 of the Act. In that case, the award was passed by the Lok Adalat which had resulted in disposal of the appeal pending before the High Court relating to a claim case arising out of Motor Vehicle Act. One party to the appeal felt aggrieved of the Award and, therefore, questioned its legality and correctness by filing a Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition holding it to be not maintainable. The aggrieved party, therefore, filed an appeal by way of special leave before this Court. This court, after examining the scheme of the Act allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court. This Court held that the High court was not right in dismissing the writ petition as not maintainable. It was held that the only remedy available with the aggrieved person was to challenge the award of the Lok Adalat by filing a writ petition under Article 226 or/and 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court 1 (2018) 13 SCC 480 WP.No.29616 of 2021 5 and that too on very limited grounds. The case was accordingly remanded to the High Court for deciding the writ petition filed by the aggrieved person on its merits in accordance with law.
26. That is what Their Lordships held in para 12:
"12. It is true that where an award is made by the Lok Adalat in terms of a settlement arrived at between the parties (which is duly signed by parties and annexed to the award of the Lok Adalat), it becomes final and binding on the parties to the settlement and becomes executable as if it is a decree of a civil Court. If any party wants to challenge such an award based on settlement, it can be done only by filing a petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution, that too on very limited grounds. But where no compromise or settlement is signed by the parties and the order of the Lok Adalat does not refer to any settlement, but directs the respondent to either make payment if it agrees to the order, or approach the High Court disposal of appeal on merits, if it does not agree, is not an award of the Lok Adalat. The question of challenging such an order in a petition under Article 227 does not arise. As already noticed, in such a situation, the High Court ought to have heard and disposed of the appeal on merits."
27. In our considered view, the aforesaid law laid down by this Court is binding on all the Courts in the country by virtue of mandate to Article 141 of the Constitution. This Court, in no uncertain terms, has laid down that challenge to the award of Lok Adalat can be done only by filing a writ petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the High court and that too on very limited grounds.
28. In the light of clear pronouncement of the law by this Court, we are of the opinion that the only remedy available to the aggrieved person (respondents herein/plaintiffs) was WP.No.29616 of 2021 6 to file a writ petition under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court for challenging the award dated 22.8.2007 passed by the Lok Adalat. It was then for the writ Court to decide as to whether any ground was made out by the writ petitioners for quashing the award and, if so, whether those grounds are sufficient for its quashing."
8. Thus, by the aforesaid judgment, it is clear that though an award of the Lok Adalat is binding on the parties and becomes executable, yet the High Court by exercising the writ jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution of India can quash the award of the Lok Adalat, however, in exceptional circumstances and when grounds for interference are made out.
9. Stating that fraud vitiates everything including the judicial acts whether in rem or personam and the judgments and decrees obtained by fraud including the awards of the Lok Adalats are nullity and hence, they cannot be acted upon, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.V.Papayya Sastry and Others Vs. Govt of A.P. and others2.
10. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with a case where an order was allegedly obtained by fraud, at para 26 of the judgment observed as follows:-
"Fraud may be defined as an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing some unfair or undeserved benefit by taking undue advantage of another. In fraud one gains at the loss of another. Even most solemn proceedings stand 2 (2007) 4 SCC 221 WP.No.29616 of 2021 7 vitiated if they are actuated by fraud. Fraud is thus an extrinsic collateral act which vitiates all judicial acts, whether in rem or in personam. The principle of "finality of litigation" cannot be stretched to the extent of an absurdity that it can be utilised as an engine of oppression by dishonest and fraudulent litigants."
11. Thus, in case fraud was played upon the petitioner, certainly, the above decision squarely applies and the reliefs sought for can be granted, exercising the powers conferred on this Court by virtue of Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. However, this is not a case where the alleged fraud was played upon the petitioner. The award in O.S.No.91 of 2008 which is under challenge was passed by the District Legal Services Authority, Ranga Reddy on 08.4.2008. As per his own case, the petitioner acquired right over the property in question through an unregistered sale deed that was obtained from the AGPA holders in the year 2010 and perfected his title by getting the said sale deed validated on 09.9.2019. Therefore, as on the date of the award of the Lok Adalat (08.4.2008), the petitioner had not acquired any right over the subject matter. Neither the original owner who executed AGPA, i.e., S.Narender Reddy, nor the AGPA holders, i.e., S.Pavan Kumar Jain and K.S.Prakash Rao, agitated the award of the Lok Adalat. Surprisingly, they were not made as parties to this Writ Petition. No doubt, fraud vitiates everything. Thus, if the award of the Lok Adalat has to be challenged, it has to be challenged by the person on whom fraud is played. The following decision which is relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner also envisages the same. The WP.No.29616 of 2021 8 said decision is the one rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Batchu Subba Lakshmi and others Vs. Sannidhi Srinivasulu and others3. In the said decision, at para 8 it is observed as follows:
"The parties to the compromise or settlement, which is the basis for award of Lok Adalat, no doubt entitled to challenge the award on any of the grounds referred to herein above grounds. Ordinarily, a third party cannot challenge the award in a writ petition even if such award causes prejudice. The remedy of such party would be to institute a separate suit or proceeding for necessary redressal and seek appropriate decree of declaration by filing a suit within the period of limitation prescribed under law. Under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, any person entitled to legal character or any right as to any property, may file a suit for declaration. Under this provision, any person can even institute a suit for declaration that the decree passed by Civil Court in an earlier suit is not binding on him. When a civil Court can even declare that an earlier decree of the Court is not binding on the party before it, we do not see any objection for a third party to institute a suit in a civil court seeking a declaration that the award of Lok Adalat is not binding on him/her subject to the law of limitation. We however hasten to add that there may be extraordinary cases where a third party is meted with injustice at the behest of two or more conniving and colluding parties, who may have obtained an award of Lok Adalat by fraud or misrepresentation only to defeat the rights of such third party. In such cases within a reasonable period such third party may maintain a writ petition. But in such cases, there should be prima facie evidence of fraud or misrepresentation or collusion in obtaining the award of Lok Adalat. Even if such allegations are made and the question involves complicated questions of fact requiring voluminous 3 (2010) 1 ALD 277 (DB) WP.No.29616 of 2021 9 evidence, third party should be left to seek remedy in a Civil Court rather than preferring extraordinary remedy under Article 226 of Constitution."
12. Therefore, as per the above decision that is relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner himself, the proper remedy for the petitioner is to approach a civil Court for declaration of his right and title over the subject property and not by way of filing a Writ Petition. No direct nexus is found between the document under challenge and the right of the petitioner over the subject property. Therefore, we conclude that the Writ Petition fails. Neither the main relief nor the consequential reliefs can be granted.
13. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
14. Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
_____________________ JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN _________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA 19.11.2021 dr