Vemula Shamanthakamma vs The Chairman
2024 Latest Caselaw 2786 Tel

Telangana High Court

Vemula Shamanthakamma vs The Chairman on 23 July, 2024

Author: P.Sam Koshy

Bench: P.Sam Koshy

             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

                                         AND
      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU

                    WRIT PETITION No.8763 of 2023

ORDER:

(per the Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY)

Heard Mr. K.Sreenivas, learned counsel for the petitioners,

Mr. J.Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and

Mr. Bhanu Prakash, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

2. The instant is a writ petition which has been filed by the

petitioners challenging the award dated 02.02.2015 passed by the

Lok Adalat Bench under the District Legal Services Authority at

Mahabubnagar in O.S.No.228 of 2014 decided before the Senior Civil

Judge, Mahabubnagar. O.S.No.228 of 2014 was a Suit for partition

between Male Sriramulu Goud as the plaintiff and Koukuntla

Somaiah Goud as the defendant.

3. According to the petitioners, the property which is in their

possession since ages is the Suit schedule property in which the Suit

for partition has been compromised before the Lok Adalat and the

impugned award has been obtained and they came in actual

possession of the property by virtue of a registered sale deed

executed in the year 1981 and an unregistered sale deed dated

15.06.1989. The vendors to the petitioners were the mother of

respondent No.2 and father of respondent No.3, both of whom are

the plaintiff and defendant before the Lok Adalat in O.S.No.228 of

2014.

4. The petitioners herein who are the physical and actual

possession holders of the property including title rights in their

favour by way of registered sale deed, yet were not made a party in

the proceedings before the Trial Court for partition in O.S.No.228 of

2014. Neither was there any averment made in the Suit or anywhere

else that the petitioners herein ywere the people who were in actual

possession of the Suit schedule property, nor was there any

challenge to their title or the registered sale deed in their favour

which was in existence by that time proved by the parties in the Suit

for partition.

5. According to the petitioners they being in possession of the

property also stands established from the mutation proceedings

which were drawn and stood decided in favour of the petitioners even

though the respondent Nos.2 and 3 had entered appearance and

objected the mutation proceedings i.e. Case No.D1/21/2007 which

stood decided in favour of the petitioners on 25.01.2014. Whereas,

O.S.No.228 of 2014 was filed before the Lok Adalat subsequently.

In spite of that, respondent Nos.2 and 3 did not think it proper for

making the petitioners herein as a necessary party.

6. The aforesaid factual matrix of the case is in itself sufficient

indication that the so-called Suit for partition i.e. O.S.No.228 of 2014

is nothing but a collusive Suit between the respondent Nos.2 and 3

and the petitioners herein with a malafide intention of depriving the

petitioners their rightful claim over the said property.

7. When the petitioners came to know about the said award

passed by the Lok Adalat they immediately filed O.S.No.59 of 2016

for declaring the award dated 02.12.2015 to be null and void and to

set-aside the same and further for grant of perpetual injunction

seeking restraint against respondent Nos.2 and 3 for interfering with

their peaceful possession. The same was subsequently withdrawn in

the light of the judicial pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court wherein it was said that an award passed by the Lok Adalat

could have been challenged by the aggrieved person only by way of a

Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is

further revealed during the course of hearing that respondent Nos.2

and 3 have subsequently filed couple of further fresh litigations

against the petitioners herein including that of a Suit for injunction

and Suit for declaration which are already seized by the Trial Court

and in all those subsequent litigations the respondent Nos.2 and 3

have highlighted the award passed by the Lok Adalat.

8. Given the aforesaid admitted factual matrix of the case,

particularly considering the manner in which respondent Nos.2 and

3 have colluded together and by way of an collusive Suit got an order

in their favour, which is under challenge in the instant writ petition,

we are of the considered view that the conduct of respondent Nos.2

and 3 and the manner in which the Suit got disposed of in spite of

having lost the mutation proceedings earlier and the Suit for

partition subsequently filed suppressing the aspect of mutation

proceedings coupled with the fact that respondent Nos.2 and 3

subsequently filed Suit for injunction and also Suit for declaration of

title etc. based upon the award of the Lok Adalat in the Suit for

partition to be itself bad in law. It is also undisputed that fraud

vitiates everything when the very foundation of filing the Suit for

partition itself was by material suppression of facts. Thus, the award

of the Lok Adalat cannot be held to be sustainable and the same

deserves to be vitiated on the ground of having being obtained by

playing fraud.

9. The order of this Bench stands fortified by the decision of the

Madhya Pradesh High Court wherein in somewhat similar

circumstances, the High Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad v.

Sangamlal and Others 1 has held as under:

"5. I have considered the submissions made on both sides. It is well settled in law that Lok Adalats have no adjudicatory or judicial functions. Their functions relate purely to conciliation. A Lok Adalat determines the reference on the basis of a compromise or settlement between the parties and puts it seal of confirmation by making the award in terms of compromise. It is equally well settled legal proposition that if any party wants to challenge the award based on settlement, the same can be examined in a writ petition under Article 226 and/or 227 on very limited grounds. [See : Jalour Singh (supra)]. In Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340 it has been held that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the Court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law and it's invalidity can be challenged even in collateral proceedings. Similar view has been taken in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. v. Jagannath(dead) by L.Rs., (1994) 1 SCC 1 : AIR 1994 SC 853 and in 2008 AIR SCW 6654. Though the award of a Lok Adalat is not a result of a contest on merits, just as a regular suit by a Court in a regular trial is, however it is as equal

2011 SCC OnLine MP 2508

and on par with a decree on compromise and will have same binding effect and be conclusive [See : P.T. Thomas v. Thomas Job, (2005) 6 SCC 478. It is trite law that validity of a compromise decree can be challenged on the ground that it was obtained by playing fraud. [See : A.A. Gopalkrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board, (2007) 7 SCC 482]. Since the award passed by the Lok Adalat is akin to a compromise decree, its validity can be challenged by a party in a writ petition on the ground that the same has been obtained by playing fraud. "Fraud" means and includes any of the following acts committed by a party to a contract, or with his connivance, or by his agent, with intent to deceive another party thereto or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the contract:-- (1) the suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true by one who does not believe it to be true; (2) the active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact; (3) a promise made without intention of performing it; (4) any other act fitted to deceive; (5) any such act or omission as the law specially declares to be fraudulent. [See : Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar, Third Edition Reprint 2007].;"

10. Further, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of

Yalamarthi Narsimha Rao v. District Legal Services Authority,

Rep. by its Secretary and Others 2 in paragraph Nos.9, 11 and 12

has held as under:

"9. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the Legal Services Authority was right in recording the compromise between the parties without the writ petitioner being made as a party to the said proceedings?

11. But, when an award of Lok Adalat was obtained by misrepresentation, fraud or without due compliance with the

2022 SCC OnLine AP 73

provisions of the Act and that it was not preceded by a compromise/settlement, it can be challenged in a Writ Petition (Sri. Durga Malleswari Educational Society4). The challenge to the award of the Lok Adalat, in proceeding under Article 226 of Constitution of India, can be entertained only at the behest of parties to the settlement/compromise before the Lok Adalat, and not by anyone else (Sanjay Kumar's case cited (2) supra). It was further observed that ordinarily a third party cannot challenge the award in a writ petition, even if such an award causes prejudice. The remedy of such party would be to institute a separate suit within the period of limitation prescribed under law for necessary redressal, and seek an appropriate decree. As a Civil Court can even declare that an earlier decree of the Court is not binding on the party before it, there can be no objection for a third party to institute a suit in a Civil Court seeking a declaration that the award Lok Adalat was not binding on him. But, there may be extraordinary cases where a third party is meted out with injustice at the behest of two or three conniving and colluding parties who may have obtained an award of the Lok Adalat by fraud or misrepresentation only to defeat the rights of the third party. In such cases, such third party may maintain a writ petition, but there should be prima-facie evidence of fraud or misrepresentation or collusion in obtaining an award of the Lok Adalat. The Division Bench further observed, as under:

"Judicial review is available to test the validity of awards passed by the Lok Adalat on limited grounds, one of which is when a party alleges that there was no settlement enabling an award being passed. If it is shown that there is no settlement or compromise, or that settlement or compromise itself is vitiated by fraud or misrepresentation, it would be a fit case for interference. Except the remedy of challenging the Lok Adalat award on limited grounds, no other authority or Court can question the award of Lok Adalat which shall be treated as final and binding. (Sanjay Kumar8; Sri. Durga Malleswari Educational Society7). In the absence of a statutory remedy of an appeal, an award can be subjected to challenge in writ proceedings invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As the jurisdiction, which this Court exercises under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extra-ordinary, and as the power of

judicial review under Article 226 is part of the basic structure of the Constitution (L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India), it cannot be circumscribed or negated by legislation plenary or subordinate. Availability of the remedy, of invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not per se disable a person aggrieved from invoking the jurisdiction of the Civil Court".

12. In State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh, cited (1) supra, the question before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was as to the remedy that is available to the person aggrieved of the award passed by the Lok Adalat under Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. In the said case, the award was passed by the Lok Adalat which has resulted in appeal pending before the High Court, relating to a claim arising out of a Motor Vehicles' Act. One party to the appeal questioned the correctness and legality of the award passed by the Lok Adalat under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India. The High Court dismissed the writ petition holding it, is not maintainable. Aggrieved thereto, he preferred an appeal by way of Special Leave before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. After examining the scheme of the Act, it would hold that the only remedy available to the aggrieved person was to challenge the award of Lok Adalat by filing a writ petition under Article 226 or 227 of Constitution of India in the High Court and that too on very limited grounds."

11. Taking strength from the aforesaid two judgments, we are also

inclined to allow the instant writ petition and set-aside the award

dated 02.02.2015 passed in O.S.No.228 of 2014 by the Lok Adalat

Bench of the District Legal Services Authority, Mahabubnagar.

12. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed. No costs.

13. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand

closed.

__________________ P.SAM KOSHY, J

___________________________ SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU, J Date: 23.07.2024 GSD