Madras High Court
Nambu Rani vs The District Legal Service ... on 21 December, 2021
W.P.(MD) No.22595 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.(MD) No.22595 of 2021
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.19113 of 2021
1.Nambu Rani
2.Seetha Ragavan
3.Gowri ... Petitioners
vs.
1.The District Legal Service Authority,
Represented by its
Chairman/Principal District Judge,
Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District.
2.S.Subbu Lakshmi
3.G.Anusuya
4.P.Suganya
5.S.Kanchana
6.P.Chandra ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.22595 of 2021
relating to the impugned compromise award passed by the first respondent in
O.S.No.159 of 2011 dated 04.04.2017 and to quash the same as illegal and
consequently to direct the first respondent to pass fresh compromise award
based on the compromise memo is to be filed by the petitioners and the
respondents 2 to 6.
For Petitioners : Mr.V.P.Rajan
ORDER
There was a suit for partition in O.S.No.159 of 2011 and the litigants
were the petitioners herein and the respondents 2 to 6, who all form part of
one family. That suit was pending on the file of the District Court,
Virudhunagar. After the parties had participated in an adversarial civil
litigation for more than five years, they then consented for the matter to be
referred to the Lok Adalat. It was accordingly referred to the Lok Adalat.
The Lok Adalat passed an award on 04.04.2017 nearly about four years
back. That award is being assailed in this present writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.22595 of 2021
2.The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on a Judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.11345 of 2017,
wherein by an order dated 07.09.2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had
stated that for questioning a Lok Adalat Award, recourse can be taken both
under Articles 226 and also 227 of the Constitution of India. That position
had been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Punjab and another Vs. Jalour Singh and Others reported in 2008 (2)
SCC 660.
3.But one aspect, which has to be examined is that the challenge to the
Lok Adalat Award is not that fraud had been committed or on any such
aspect.
4.The scope in this writ petition is quite narrow. Judicial Review will
not lie if proper procedure had been followed. If a wrong decision had been
taken, then the Writ Court cannot interfere with it. The Writ Court can only
interfere, when there had been no opportunity granted or when there is a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.22595 of 2021
fraud on the basis of the record or when one of the parties had been sidelined
and totally divested of all rights.
5.The proper procedure for the petitioner is to approach the Court
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and raise issues of facts. It is
also noted that the Lok Adalat Award has been challenged nearly after four
years and the reason why the parties had waited for four years is not given. It
is also not known whether the parties had acted upon the Lok Adalat Award
and proceeded further. These are all issues which this Court cannot
examine.
6.The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
21.12.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
sji
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.22595 of 2021
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for
official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order
that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.22595 of 2021
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.
sji
W.P.(MD) No.22595 of 2021
21.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
