Telangana High Court

Dasari Lokesh Chandra vs Lok Adalat And 13 Others on 20 December, 2021

Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, Chillakur Sumalatha

            HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                             AND
         HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

                     WRIT PETITION No.18369 of 2021

ORDER: (per Hon'ble Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha)

        Challenge in this Writ Petition is to the Award passed by the

District Legal Services Authority, Medak at Sangareddy in Lok Adalat

Case No.1567 of 2010 dated 12.3.2010.

2.      The case of the writ petitioner in brief, as could be ascertained

from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, is that the land

admeasuring Acs.72-13 guntas in Survey Nos.141, 172, 173, 174, 175,

197, 274, 340, 140, 576, 578, 290, 291, 292, 293 and 298 of

Nandigama Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District, was

purchased by one Sri Lakkaraju Laxmana Rao and he was in peaceful

possession and enjoyment of the said property. Subsequently, the said

Lakkaraju Laxmana Rao died and on that, his three sons, who are

respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein, succeeded to his estate. Later, they along

with others obtained permission from Gram Panchayat, Nandigama,

seeking approval of the layout in respect of the land in Survey

Nos.141, 173, 174 and 197 admeasuring Acs.42-10 guntas in total and

accordingly, approval was granted in the year 1993 and thereafter, the

Revenue Divisional Officer granted permission for change of the said

land from agricultural use to non-agricultural use. Proceedings were

thereafter issued by the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Sangareddy vide

proceedings dated 05.01.1994. Later, all the three sons of late

Lakkaraju Laxmana Rao executed separate General Power of UB, J & Dr.CSL, J

Attorneys by appointing respondent Nos.5 and 6 as their lawful

Attorneys in respect of their undivided share of land admeasuring

Acs.42-10 guntas. Subsequently, the said land was developed and the

said Attorneys sold the plots to approximately 696 prospective

purchasers. The petitioner purchased Plot Nos.379 and 452 through a

registered sale deed. Almost all the plots were sold during the years

1990 and 1992. While the matter stood thus, the daughters of late

Lakkaraju Laxmana Rao filed a suit in the year 2007 for partition and

separate possession of entire land of Acs.72-13 guntas against their

brothers vide O.S.No.134 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Principal

District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, claiming 1/10th share each. On

30.6.2009, a preliminary decree was passed as prayed for. Later, the

sons and the daughters of late Lakkaraju Laxmana Rao entered into a

compromise, the same was recorded by the Lok Adalat and Award

dated 12.3.2010 was passed. In pursuance of the said Lok Adalat

Award, various registered sale deeds were executed.

3. Respondent No.13 filed a suit for permanent injunction vide

O.S.No.76 of 2020 which is pending on the file of the Court of District

Judge, Medak at Sangareddy and in the said suit, interim injunction

was also granted. The petitioner was not made a party to the said suit.

4. It is contended that as the petitioner is not a party to the suit for

partition, the preliminary decree passed in the said suit and the Award

of the Lok Adalat dated 12.3.2010 are not binding upon him. The

compromise entered into between the sons and the daughters of late

Lakkaraju Laxmana Rao is a collusive one. The vendors of the UB, J & Dr.CSL, J

petitioner also did not disclose the fact that late Lakkaraju Laxmana

Rao died leaving behind him three sons and seven daughters. Taking

advantage of the purchase made, respondent No.13 has illegally

encroached into the plots of the petitioner. Thus, as there is no other

alternative remedy to challenge the Award of the Lok Adalat, the

petitioner has approached this Court by way of a Writ Petition

invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Gave due and anxious

consideration to the submissions advanced.

5. Having regard to the averments of the affidavit filed in support

of the relief sought for, the points that arise for consideration are:-

(1) Whether the petitioner being a third party to the Award of the Lok Adalat can challenge the same invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

(2) Whether there exists any justifiable grounds to set aside the Award under challenge i.e., the Award passed by the District Legal Services Authority, Medak at Sangareddy in Lok Adalat Case No.1567 of 2010 dated 12.3.2010.

6. Point No.1:-

Arguing at length in respect of the merits of the case, the

learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is a

bona fide purchaser of Plot Nos.379 and 452 admeasuring 400 square

yards in Survey No.175 of Patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy District

and he purchased the said property on 30.01.2021 through a registered

sale deed for valuable consideration, but subsequently he came to

know that an Award was passed by the Lok Adalat in respect of the UB, J & Dr.CSL, J

said property and other property in a suit between the sons and the

daughters of late Lakkaraju Laxmana Rao and the said Award is based

on the terms of compromise entered into between the parties i.e., the

sons and the daughters of late Lakkaraju Laxmana Rao and indeed, the

said deed of compromise is a collusive one and therefore, the Award

passed basing on the said deed of compromise is unsustainable. He

further submitted that as there is no other remedy for the petitioner

who is a third party to the proceedings to question the Award of the

Lok Adalat, he filed the present Writ Petition challenging the same.

7. Undoubtedly, challenge to an Award of the Lok Adalat can be

done only by filing a Writ Petition under Article 226 or 227 of the

Constitution of India, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Bhargavi Constructions and another Vs. Kothakapu Muthyam

Reddy and others1

8. Under Section 21(1) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987,

an Award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of the civil

Court. Also, as per Section 21(2) of the said Act, the Award made is

final and binding on the parties. Law does not provide any appeal to

any Court against the said Award. Thus, only, Writ Petitions can be

filed challenging the Award passed by the Lok Adalat. However, the

grounds of challenge are very limited.

9. Observing that there may be extra-ordinary cases where a third

party is meted with injustice at the behest of two or more conniving

and colluding parties, who may have obtained the Award of the Lok

(2018) 13 SCC 480 UB, J & Dr.CSL, J

Adalat by fraud or misrepresentation, the Courts in a series of

decisions held that even a third party may maintain a Writ Petition

challenging the Award of the Lok Adalat. One of such cases where the

said observation is made is Batchu Subba Lakshmi and others Vs.

Sannidhi Srinivasulu and others2, wherein a Division Bench of this

Court at para 8 held 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

2010(1) ALD 277 DB UB, J & Dr.CSL, J

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 evidence, third party should be left to seek remedy in a civil Court rather than preferring extraordinary remedy under Article 226 of Constitution."

10. Therefore, the point taken up for discussion is answered holding

that the petitioner, though a third party to the Award under challenge,

is entitled to maintain the present Writ Petition.

11.Point No.2:-

Having held through the above point that the petitioner, though

a third party to the Award of the Lok Adalat which is under challenge,

has got locus standi to maintain the Writ Petition, now, it has to be

seen whether basing on the plea taken by the petitioner, the Award of

the Lok Adalat is liable to be interfered with.

12. The material available on record discloses the following factual

aspects:-

(1) In the year 2007, the daughters of late Lakkaraju

Laxmana Rao filed a suit against the sons of late

Lakkaraju Laxmana Rao and another for partition and

separate possession of the joint family property vide suit

in O.S.No.134 of 2007 on the file of the Court of

Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

(2) On 30.6.2009, judgment was delivered in the said suit

and preliminary decree was passed for partition of the UB, J & Dr.CSL, J

suit schedule property into ten equal shares as prayed for

by the plaintiffs to the said suit. However, the suit

against defendant No.4 was dismissed.

(3) On 12.3.2010, the parties to the suit i.e., the sons and

the daughters of late Lakkaraju Laxmana Rao entered

into a compromise regarding allotment of shares in

pursuance of the preliminary decree and accordingly,

Award was passed on 12.03.2010.

(4) The final decree passed in pursuance of the Lok Adalat

Award reveals that through the terms of compromise,

the share of each allottee was demarcated.

13. Thus, in the light of the above scenario, it has to be seen as to

how far it is justifiable on part of the petitioner to challenge the said

demarcation.

14. Admittedly, the petitioner's vendors are Ganguri Madhavi

Latha, Ganguri Vamshi and Ganguri Varshini. Nowhere the petitioner

has averred that he proceeded against his vendors on the ground that

they had sold the property without any valid right and title. The

petitioner, as per his own version, got right over the property through

the sale deed dated 30.01.2021. Though the preliminary decree was

passed on 30.6.2009 and the Lok Adalat Award was passed on

12.3.2010, none raised any objection including the vendors of the

petitioner. Surprisingly, the petitioner did not add at least his vendors