The High Court · 2025

Judgment

6. State Legal Services Authority, High Court Premises, High Court Building Hyderabad, Telangana District Legal Services Authority, Malkajgiri, Medchal-Malkajgiri District Rep. by its Secretary Mandal Legal Services Committee, Malkajgiri, Medchal-Malkajgiri District Rep. by its Secretary K. Avinash., s/o Late Tirupataiah R/o Plot No. 148-A, Eswaripura Qolony, Sainikpuri, Tirumalgiri, Hyderabad - 500 094 K. Nagalakshmi, W/o Late K. Tirupathaiah R/o Plot No. 148-4, Eswaripura Colony, Sainikpuri, Tirumalgiri, Hyderabad - SOO 094 ( 4 S P P Kiran, S/o Late K Tirupathaiah Rl/o plot No. 1zE-A, Eswaripura Colony, Sainikpuri, Tirumalgiri, Hyderabad - 5OO Og4 Petition under Articre 226 ot the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High cou( may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of writ of certiorari ...RESPONDENTS declaringtheUndatedLokAdalathawardino.S.No.6T4of2o2oonthefileof the Honourable 1st Junior civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. At Kushaiguda passedbytheRespondentNo.3LokAdalatasbeingillegal'unlarvful,arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of principles of natural justice, fair play, equity and violative of Articles 21 and 300-4 of the constitution of lndia and also violative of the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987' 1 Petition under section 151 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the undated Lok Adalat award in o.s. No.674 ot 2O2O on the file of the Hon,ble 1st Junior civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. At Kushaiguda passed bytheRespondentNo.3LokAdalatpendingdisposaloftheWritPetition. 40 74 Between: K. Avinash., s/o Late Tirupataiah R/o Plot No. 148.A' Eswaripura colony, Sainikpuri' Tirumalgiri, HYderabad - 5O0 094 ...PETITIONERS/R4 AND 1. K. Kalyani, W/o T.L. Ramana Murthy Aged-about 49 years, Occ' Housewile. iir.;'Fili';b;;ir, omireJet"no, riisto-"p Road, Kowkoor, Hvderabad - 500 0101 2. K. Sreelatha, Wo Late Dr. P Kq9lrina$ Aged abo-ut. 47 ygars' .Occ' - ii;rU;El-Fv;- H. -tt-o. +-zoolt+8/A, Eswaiipura colo-nv-^Tirumalqgiri, Presentlv Residins at 5009 Park Ave' 5;';"ilkili:' fvolraoao, Roswell, GA 30076, U-S.' Represented by GPA Holder i.e., Petitioner No' 1' K' Kalyani Wo T.L' itili"""r,arrtfii Agea iooui +s vbao..occ..Housewife, Rl/o'Flat no. 411, b.;a;G6ra.'ris"top Road, Kow(oor, Hvderabad - 500 0101 -s00093 ...PETITIONERS 4. State Legal servi{:es Authority, High court Premises, High court Building Hyderabad, Telangana

5. District Legal seMces Authority, Malkajgiri, Medchal-Malkajgiri District Rep. by its Secretary

6. Mandal Legal Services Committee, Malkalgiri, Medchal-Malkajgiri District Rep. by its Secretary 7 K. .Nagalakshmi, V1//o Late K. Tirupathaiah Ri/o plot No. 148-4, Eswaripura Colony, Sainikpuri, Tirumalgiri, Hyderabad - S00 094

8. K.A.S.P._B. Klran, S/o Late K. Tirupathaiah Fi/o Ptot No. 148-4, Eswaripura Colony, Sainikpuri, Tirumalgiri, Hyderabad - 500 094 RESPONDENTS

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dt.27.3.2024 passed in l.A. No. 1 of 2O24 in the above writ petition No. 7968 / 2024. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S.MANEESH REDDY, rep., SRI SHEELAM ASHOK REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1to3 , SBit6?Tti"rn rep., p.SHASHI K|RAN, Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI M.V.SURESH KUMAR, Sr.Counset Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : SR! M.V.PRATHAP KUMAR Counsel forthe Respondent No.6: -- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.7968 OF 2024 Sri $. Maneesh Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri Sheelam Ashok Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Sri g.papesh, learned counsel representing Sri Pusluri Shashi Kiran, the learned standinB Counsel for TSLSA appearing for the respondent Nos.l to 3. Sri t14.y. Suresh Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.4. Sri \4.y. Prathap Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.S. ORDERi(Per The Hon'ble Justice Mo ushu mi Bhattacharyar) 1' The petitioners seek a declaration that an un-dated Lok Adalat Award passed in O.S.NI.674 of 2O2O on the file of the Mandal l,egal Services Committee: Additional Junior Civil Judge, Malkajgiri, Medchal- Malkajgiri District, is illegal, violates the principles of natural justice and is r:ontrary to the provisions of The Legal Services Authorities Act, Lg87 ('[he tgST ActJ. 2' The impugned Awartl was pasbed in a Suit filed by the respondent No - 4 before the t Additional .luinior Civil Judge-cum-l Additional IVIe lrspelitan Magistrate at Kushaigqda, Medchal-lvlalkajgiri District (Trial Co\-r.rt) for partition and separate po,ssession. The petitioner No.1 was the dcf-srt6unt No.3; the petitiorrer No.2 was tfrc dcfendant No.4 in the said suit filed by the respondent No.4. 'rhe respondent No.s was the I 2 defendant No.1; the respondent No.6 was the defendant No.2 in the said Suit.

3. The petitioner Nos.1,2 and the respondent Nos.4 and 6 are sisters and brothers and children of the respondent No.S. The respondent No.4 filed the Suit before the Trial court for partition and separate possession against the respondent Nos.S and 6 (defendant Nos.l and 2) and the petitioner Nos. r and, 2 (defendant Nos.3 and 4). As stated above, the defendants in the said suit were the mother and the three other siblings of the respondent No.4/plaintiff. According to the resprndenr No.4, the suit rvas settled between the parties culminating in the impugned Award recording, inter alia, that the plaintiff and the defenciants have resolved their disputes and concludes the following: (i) Tha[ a, the defendants have mutuary agrecd ro give-up thcir respective ii5'.t share of iand/Ac.o2-19 gts. of land per defendant in the suit schedure property in favour of the praintiff. (ii) The Award further records that the plaintiff had agreed to pay an amount of Rs.2o,3o,ooo/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Thirty Thousa-nd only) to each of the defendant and the same has been paid to the said defendants and ttre same was acknowledged in the Registered Special Power of Attorneys. (iii) That all the defendants have already signed a Release Deed in favour of the plaintiff relinquishing their respective shares ip the schedule t, \ \ 3 property The impugned Award is an un-dated Award. 4' The petitioners, i.e., the two sisters of the respondent No.4/plaintiff, have challenged the impugned Lok Adalat Award on the ground of the Suit being filed against the petitioners without service of notice to them. 5' Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the parties entered into a Registered Partition Deed on 2g. l2.2o2o and that the respondent No.4 took care of all the documentation by obtaining the signatures of the petitioners on various documents/blank papers/blank non-judicial stamp papers etc. on the premise that the signatures are required for completing the partition and mutation of the schedule property' counsel submits that the petitioner No.2 left India on 3l'12'2o2o after signing the documents on the bona fide belief that the Partition Deed was executed in respect of all the properties except the suit schedule propert5r and that the petitioner No.l only came to know on 29'0L'2024 that the respondent Nos.4-6 had undertaken the development activities on the subject property. Counsel submits that the petitioners immediately tried to contact the re:;pondent No.5 (their mother) as well as the respondent No.6 (their brother)/the defendant No.2 in the suit but could not get any answers from them. The petitioners hence decided to take steps for filing a Partition suit and accordingly the petitioner No.2 had sent a power of attorney authorizing the petitioner No.I for the pLlrpose of instituting the Partition Suit. During the process of collating I 4 the information for filing of the Suit, the petitioners came to know that there has been a layout permission issued by the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority and also that the respondent No.4/plaintiff portraying himself to be the absolute owner had initially applied for mutation in respect of the subject property and had also approached the High Court for a Cirecticn on the Revenue authorities. Counsel submits that the petitioners came to know on I1.O3.2O24 that the respondent Nos.4-6 have fraudulently obtained the impugned Lok Adalat Award in O.S.No.674 of 2020 on the strength of a Registered General Power of Attorney executed by the petitioners in favour of the respondent No.S uide Registered GPA ciated 28.12.2O2O.

6. Learned Scnior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 submits that the Writ Petition has been fiied by suppressing material facts including that the petitioners executed Registered General Power of Attorneys, Registered Special Power of Attorneys as well as a Release Deed after receiving Rs.20,30,OO0i - each of the defendants. Senior Counsel submits that a Registered Gift Deed on 28.12.2020 was executed in favour of the petitioner No.2 by the respondent No.S in respect of 6883 Sq. Yards (27 Plots). Prior to that, by registered document dated L4.06.2019 that the husband of the petitioner No.1 was also allotted 9249 Sq. Yds. in Landmark Colcny though he was entitled to 4295 Sq. Yards. Senior Counsel submits that the petitioners also executed a Release Deed dated 28.12.2020 relinquishing all the rights to the subject property. It is i t \ \ 5 also subrnitted that the petitioners failed to challenge the impugned Award within the limitation of three years as under Article 59 of the Schedule to The Limitation Act, 1963, the said three years expired by 28'L2'2o23 and further submits that the petitioners are not entitled to question the transaction after having received substantial sums of money. It is also urged that an impugned Award is deemed to be a decree of a civil court and drawing up of an Award is merely an administrative act by incorporating the terms of settlement under Regulation IZ of the National Legal services Authority (Iok Adalat) Regurations, 2oog. 7 ' Learned counser appearing for the respondent No.5 supports the contention of the respondent No.4 and lays emphasis on the GpAs executed by the petitioners in favour of the respondent No.s and the Release Deed by which the petitioners relinquished their rights. 8- we have considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners as well as the respondent Nos.4 and 5. 9' The dispute is essentially between the two sisters (petitioners) and the brother and mother (respondent Nos.4 and s, respectivery). The respondent No.6 (the other brother) claims to be a disinterested parcy. lo' The brief facts relevant to the present adjudication are stated below: 11' on 2s-os-2ooo, a Sare Deed was executed by p.pochaiah and g other persons in favour of K. Tirupatha iah uide a Registered Sale Deed / ./ I 6 being the absolute owners and possessors of the land at Dayara Village, Keesara Mandal, Shamirpet, Ranga Reddy District,.

12. K. Tirupathaiah passed away on 06.02.2010 leaving behind his legal heirs thal- is the petitioners and the respondenl- Nos.4-6. The respondent No.S is the wife of the late K. Tirupathaiah. The legal heirs thus became entitled to l/Stt share each in the properties belonging to the late K. Tirupathaiah. The parties executed a Registered Partition Deed on 28.I2.2O2O. The respondent No.4/plaintiff took care of all the documentation including obtaining the signatures of the petitioners for completing the Partition as well as the Mutation of the properties. The petitioner No.2 left India three da-vs later on 3L.12.2O20 under tlte bona fide belief and impression that the Partition Deed has been executed in respect of all the properties except the subject property.

13. On 29.01,.2024, the petitioner No.l came to know about the development activities being undertaken on the subject property by the respondent Nos.4-6. An irrevocable GPA was executed by the petitioner No.2, who is residing in USA had asked the petitioner No' 1 (her sister) to initiate the steps. On 16.02.2A24, the petitioner No.1 initiated steps for filing of a Partition Suit. The petitioner No.2 sent a Power of Attorney aqthorizing the petitioner No.1 to institute a Partition Suit to protect their share in the property left by their late father. ( t \ \ 7 14- It is not disputed that the respondent No.4 liled a Suit (O.S.No.674 of 2o2ol on 21.12-2o2O against the petitioners and the respondent Nos.S and 6 for Partition of the suit property and allotment of l7strr share to the respondent No.4/plaintiff and each of the defendants. A Registered GpA was executed by the petitioner No.2 in favour of her mother (respondent No.S) on 28-12-2020 authorizing the latter to deal with her undivided l/str share in the subject propert5r. Similar Registered GpAs were executed by the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.6 in favour of their mother/respondent No.S on the same day. The respondent No.4 claims that all the parties allotted the house propertSr situated at Sainikpgri to the two brothers (respondent Nos.4 and 6) in equal shares. The petitioners and the respondent No.S were given Rs.2 lakhs each in lieu of their share. A Release Deed was executed by the petitioners and the respondent Nos.5 and 6 in favour of the respondent No.4 on 2g. L2.2o2o in respect of their individual tTstt shares. The petitioners and the rcspondent Nos.S and 6 received Rs.20,3o,ooo/- each through online rnode of payment.

15. However, the Release Deed could not be registered at the relevant point of time. Registered Special Power of Attorne.ys were also executed on 28' l2'2o2o by the petitioners and the respondent No.6 in favour of the respondent No'S (their mother) authorizing her to Register the Release Deed' The respondent No.5 executed a Registered Gift Deed in favour o[ the petitioner No.2 in respect of 2T plots of land admeasuring I 8 6883 Sq. Yards situated at Landmark colony, Dayara Vilalge, Keesara Grampanchayat, Keesara Mandal, Medchal-Matkajgiri District, on 28-12.2020. The husband of the petitioner No.l was given land in the said Dayara Village through a Registered document.

16. The respondent No.S entered appearance on behalf of the petitioners, the respondent No.6 as well as herself in O.S.No.674 of 2O2O on O7.O1.2O2t and liled the Registered GPAs, SPAs and the Release Deed in Trial Court on O7.OI.2O2l. The dispute was referred to the Lok Adalat. The respondent No.4 claims that the impugned Award was also passed on that date i.e.,07.01.2021 and that the petiticlners and the respondent No.6 were represented by the rcspondent No.S as the Registered GpA- holder. The respondent No.4/plaintiff thereafter approached the Revenue Authorities and thereafler, the tiigh Court for deietion of name of Bhoodan Board in the Revenue records and for entering the name of the respondent No.4. An un-dated order was passed by the District Collector in December, 2022 recommending transfer oi lanci irom Notional Khata (Bhoodan) to Patta in the name of the respondent No.4. On 04.07.2023 and 13.1O.2O23,the High Court directed the Tahsildar to implement the order of the District Collector and the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration to consider the case of the petitioner as per the order of the District Collector, respectively. Both these orders were passed in an I.A.No.1 of 2023 and C.C.No.1651 of 2023 of the Writ Petition (W.P.No.17049 of 2023) filed by the respondenr No.4. t t \ 9 L7. The petitioners claim that they came to know about the respondent No.4 portraying himself to be the absolute owner of the property in February, 2024 and that the respondent No.4 applied for Mutation of the said property. The petitioners say that they also came to know of the impugned Lok Adalat Award around that time.

18. The present Writ Petition was liled on 22.03.2024 challenging the un-dated Lok Adalat Award on the ground of fraud on the part of the respondent No.4 in obtaining the said Award behind the back of the petitioners and also on the breach of principles of natural justice and the violation o[ the provisions of the 1987 Act. The petitioners were granted interim protection on 27.O3.2O24 and the respondent No.4 applied for vacating the interim order on 29.O4.2O24.

19. It is undisputed that the impugned Lok Adalat Award is an un- dated Award. The impugned Award was passed in the Suit filed by the respondent No.4 for Partition and Separate possession against the defendants. The petitioners were the defendant Nos.3-4 in the said Suit. The Award records that the plaintiff and the defendants have resolved threir dispute as per their understanding. The recorded understanding, which forms part of the impugned Award, is set out below: '1. All delendants have mutually agreed to grve their respective l/Stt share of land, n'hich is Ac.o2-19 gts of land per defendant in the Suit Schedule Property in favour of the plaintiff.

2. The Plaintiff had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.2O,3O,OOO/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Thirty Thousand only) for each defendant and the same I 10 has been paid to Defendants and same was acknowleclged in the Regd. Special Power'of Attorneys. 3' All defendants herein have arready signed the Release Deed in favour of the Plaintiff, by way or remquisting their respective shares in the Schedule of property. 4' All defendants have 11!ually agreed that they have NO OBJECTIoN in mutating the name of prainiiff "in the Revenue Records in place of K. Tirupathaiah over the scheduf" p.op"ny to total extent. 5' All the Defendants rrave No objection in Awarding the Suit in favour of the Plaintiff without costs."

20. It would be evident from the above that the Releasr: Deed which was signed by the defendants in favour of the responcrent No.4/plaintiff formed the primary reason for the Lor< Acralat to p^ss the impugned Award. Therefore, it is necessary to dwe, on the legatity of the Rerease Deed for the purpose of the present adjuCication. 2L' The Release Deed, being an unregistcred documcnt, would hence attract the statutory bar under thc provisions of 'ftrc Registration Act, 1908 ('the 19og ActJ ..r,irh regard to affecring the rights of petitioners/defendants. section LT of the rgog Act e,umerates the documents which require compursory registration. Section 17(1)(b) mandates registration of non-testamentary instrtrments which acknowledge or operate to create. declare, assign, limit or extinguish whether in present or future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, valued at one hundred rupees and upwitrds to or in immovable property. t t, \ 11

22. Section 17(1Xb) of the 1908 Act should be read with section 49 of the sa.id Act which sets out the consequence of non-registration of docurnents which require mandatory registration under the _form:r' Section 49 of the Act specifically stipulates that no document required by under section 17 to be registered shall as mentioned in section 49(a) of the Act, affect any immovable property comprised therein, unless it has been registered. The proviso to section 49 makes an exception for an unregistered. document affecting immovable property and required by this Act or the transfer of property Act, 1882, to be registered to the extent of being received in evidence of a contract in a Suit for specific performance under Chapter II of The Specific Relief Act or as evidence of any collateral transaction which is not reqtrired to be effected by the registered instrument.

23. The proviso/exception to the effect of non-registration under section 49 of the Act would not apply to the facts of the present case since, admittedly, the unregistered Release Deed cannot be treated as a collateral transaction in the Suit liled by the respondent No.4 was for Partition and Separate Possession ;rnd that the said Release Deed was required to be received as evidence of any collateral transaction.

24. The Understanding recorded in the impugned Award treats the Release Deed as the basis of the petitioners (defendants in the Suit) relinquishing their rights in the subject propertJr in favour of the respondent No.4 (plaintiff). The Supreme Court in Yellapu Uma _/ / /

1.2 Malesutari & Anr. v. Bud.d.ha Jagad.heesu)ara Rao & orsr.. there is a Relinquishment of right in respect of the immovable property through a document which is compulsorily registrable becomes an inadmissible document under section 49 of the Act and the docurnents which squarery fall within the ambit of section r7(1}(b) of the I90g Acr and are compulsorily registrable documents and the sarne arc inadrnissible in evidence for the purpose of proving the factum clf partition between the parties and hence considered that those documents are not admissibre in evidence for the purpose of proving primary purpose or-partition. 25' Although, the respondents contend that the Relcase Decd could not be registered by reason of the pending p;:oceedings for tlcletion of Notional Khata (Bhoodan) rand to patta land, it is rerevant th:rt n. attempt was made to registt:r the Release Deed f,rom zo2o-2o23 or cven rhcrcafter. 'fhe present writ Petition was liled in 2024. Non-rcgisLratio, of such a vital document by which the petitioners (as defendants) relinquished all their rights in the suit property in favour of the r.esponcie't No.4 raises a cloud of suspicion on the understanding arrived at betu,een the parties. The aforesaid circumstances are compounded by severar other unexplained factors: (a) The impugned Award does not bear a date 'lhe au'ard is only signed by (il the respondent No.4/plainriff ancl his c(),nsei, (ii) the '(zors) 16 scc 787 \t 13 respondent No'S as the mother (iii) the GPA-holder of the defendant Nos.3-4 (petitioners herein), and (iv) counsel for the defendants. (b) Although, it is been argued that both the petitioners executed GPAs in favour of the respondent No.S authorizing her to deal with their 1/5tt' undivided share of the property, the GpA was admittedly executed solely for managing the propertjr in the petitioners, best interest. This means that any power to compromise courd only be for the purpose of safeguarding the petitioners' interests as opposed to divesting them of their rights in the suit schedule properry. (c) The manner in which the GpA was used by the respondent No.S belies the trust reposed by the petitioners in favour of the respondent No.5. The respondent No.S entered appearance in the Suit, fired a Joint Memo and represented the petitioners even before service of notice to the petitioners (defendants in the suit). This raises the presumption that the petitioners were not given any opportunit5r to contest the suit or oppose the proceedings' The compromise recorded in the absence of petitioners or their signatures on the compromise hence aggravates the scenario. (d) The respondent No.4/respondent No.5/GpA-holder arso fired a Joint Memo in the Trial court on 07.0 L.2o2l for referring the Suit to the Lok Adalat for recording the compromise between the ptaintiff and the defendants. soon after, the respondent No.4 filed an affidavit for advancing the date of hearing of the suit from 25.01 .2027 to 27.12.2020 for recording the compromise beLween the plaintiff and the clefendants. A t4 docket order was passed by the Trial Court on O7.OL.'2O21 allowing the application for advancement and referring the matter to the [,ok Adalat. (e) incidentally, the same docket order records that the parties have settled the matter before the Lok Adalat and an Award is passed in terms of a Mutual Settlement. A comparison of the dates would also show that the Joint Memo between the respondent No.4 and thc respondent No.S could not have been filed on O7.O1 .2O2O since the respondent No.4's affidavit is of 21.12.202O and the docket order rvas passed on 07.01.2O2L. (0 It is crucial that the respondent No.5 filed a .Joint Memo for advancement of the hearing for the purpose of recording thc Compromisc even before notices in the Suit were served to the petitioncrs. Thc notices were served only on 23.Ot.2O21 and the same were returned utrserved. Therefore, the conduct of the respondent No.5 as thc GPA-holder of the petitioners does not pass muster at several levels, including that of not representing the petitioners' best interest. The respondent No.5 also displayed unusual haste in seeking to relinquish the petitioners' rights in the Suit property even before service of notice to the petitioners'

26. The impugned Lok Adalat Award suffers frorn several other infirmities. Apart from being un-dated and passed without the signatures of all the parties before it, the docket ord.er dated o7'0 t '2a2L further emasculates the Award. on 07.01 .2o2L, the Triat Court (i) allowed the prayer for advancement, (ii) advanced the date of hearing to O7'Ol'2021, \ t \ \ 15 (iii) referred the matter to the Lok Adalat, (iv) recorded that the parties have settled the matter before the Lok Adalat, (v) recorded that an Award is passed in terms of a Mutual Settlement and (vi) returned all the unmarked documents to the plaintiffs on a Memo. The Trial Court completes all of the aforesaid on the same day which is contrary to the 1987 Act.

27. Section 20 of the 1987 Act provides the sequence of cognizance of cases by Irck eaatats. Sections 20 (Ll, Q), (3) and (a) lays down the sequence from the parties applying to the Court flor referring the case to the Lok Adalat for Settlement, the Lok Adalat proceeding to dispose the case and arrive at a Compromise or Settlement between the parties, passing of the Award and return of the case to the Court.

28. It is settled law that a separate order must be passed by the Lok Adalat recording the Compromise between the parties before passing the Arvard. The [,ok Adalat recording the Compromise shoutd ascertain if the parties are present personally and also undertake to verify their identities by the production of suitable documentary proof. Even if the parties are represented by their Attorney, the Lok Adalat to ascertain that the concerned party has been served with notice. It is only to be expected that a tok Adalat would always have to be suspicious if a party enters appearance even before service of notice. The Lok Adalat should always ensure that the parties entering into a Compromise are represented and I 16 obtain signatures on the compromise rather than the power of attorney: Renuka u. Ramanand. and" Ors2. 29' The necessit5r of passing of the Lok Adarat Award under the provisions of the lgBT Act was noticed by , Division Bench of the High c<-rurt of Andhra pradesh in a writ petition (w.p.No. r 2r3o of 2oo5): D. Pochaiah u. The Chainnan, Lok Ad.alats. 30' The sole premise of the respondent No.4/plaintifl'is suppression of facts by the petitioners of the Registered Gift Deed executed in favour of the petitioncr No.2 and the husband of the petitirner No. r. The contention is that the petitioners cannot challenge the irnpugned Au,ard after having received consideration in exchange of giving up their rights to the Suit property' and aftcr having executed Registered ()IrAs in lavour o[ the respondenr No.S as welr as the Reiease Deed datr:d t2g.r2.2o2o. The respondents argue that there is a presumption of validity of the registered documents by reason of the GpAs and spAs being registr:red. The stand taken on behalf of the respondents is contrary to the statute i.e., the IggT Act which places emphasis on a Setflement Agreemenl under section 22(El of the Act

31. [t is also of relevance that the certified copy of the Lok Adalat Aw'ard obtained by the petitioners cloes not contain a date, whereas the certified ' tvtRlu/rarrr 6;,0/2022 ' w.P.No.t 2130 of 2005 ) \ 17 copy of the same Award given to the respondents bears the date 07.01.2o2L. Needless to say, a certified copy is prepared by reproducing the original document and authenticating the copy after comparing it with the original. The discrepancy between the certilied copies of the Award is hence striking and affects the authenticity of the record itself. 32' we have already expressed our views with regard to the GpAs with reference to the conduct of the respondent No.5/GpA-holder and the invalidity of the unregistered Release Deed. we have also opined on the anomalies and the inconsistencies of the advancement petitions and the dockct order passed by the Court which itself is contrary to section 20 of the 1987 Act. Hence, we do not find any substance in the argument of presumption of validity of the unregistered documents. We do not wish to go into the question of whether the petitioners received the amount of Rs-2o,30,ooo/- each for giving up their rights on the schedule property since that is beyond the contemplation of the present writ petition where the only question is whether the Lok Adalat Arx,ard calls for interference.

33. The respondents' contention of delay and latches is equally untenable since the argument of Article 59 of the Schedule to the 1963 Act deals with cancellation/setting aside of an instrument, decree or for rescission of a contract with three years from the date of knowledge. [n the present case, the challenge is to an un-dated Lok Adalat Award. The petitioners have, in any event, preaded knowredge of the impugned Award from January /March 2024. t I, 18

34. Vinod Kumar Singh u. Banaras Hindu Uniuersitga dealt with a judgment pronounced in open Court. The Supreme Court held that a judgment dictated in open Court becomes operative even without the signature of the learned Judge and could not be altered. This has no application to the Lok Adalat Award which has been'challenged in the present case. 'rt^, K. Jayaram u. Bangalore Deuelopment Authoity.; and M.S. SanjaA u. India Bank6, reiterated that the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extraordinary, ecluitable and discretionary and requires the petitioner ro approach the C<>urt with clean hands without concealing the relevant facts within his knowledge.

35. We do not lind any suppression on behalf of the petil.ioners. In fact, the petitioners \rrre deprived of an opportunity to contest the Suit since they were under a bona fide belief that their mother/respondent No.5 would protect their best interests. Unfortunately, this did not happen. The very fact that the notices served to the petitioners were returned tnuch after the respondent No.5 joined the respondent No.4 in expediting the hearing. of the Suit and recording the compromise between the parties shows that the petitioners' right to a fair hearing was violated. o (rgag) 1 scc 80 t 1zozz1 12 scc 815 t zozs ntsc tzz 1 ) I 19 36' We thus find that the petitioners have approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with substantial grounds for challenging the impugned Lok Adalat Award. Apart from the Award itself raising several questions, the Release Deed is contrary to the 19og Act and the conduct of the GPA-holder/respondent No.5 is suspicious. The manner in which the hearing in the suit filed by the respondent No.4 was expedited, referred to the Lok Adalat, and disposed of by way of the impugned Award in great haste also casts a shadow on the legality of the impugned Award. Hence, the petitioners are entitled to the relief prayed for. 37 ' The above discussion gives our reasons for treating the Lok Adalat A'*'ard as procedurally deficient and warranting interference. 38' w'P.No-7968 of 2024 is allowed and disposed of by setting aside the un-dated Lok Adalat Award passed in o.S.No .674 of 2o2o on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-[ Aclditional Metropolitan Magistrate at Kushaiguda at Kushaiguda, Meclchal-Malkajgiri. 39- Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. lnterim orders, if any, shall stand vacated. Witness THE That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH , on this Thursday, The Thir.tieth Day Of October Two Thousand And Twenty Five //TRUE COPYII D ABDULLA KHAN REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1' I?ffi:1t:.:?tjffi#ces Authority, Hish courr premises, Hish courr Buildins 2' m?-:j??lt1gi,"?:ttt'tt Lesal Services Authoritv, Malkajgiri, Medchar-

3. The Secretary, Mandal Legal Services Committee, Malkajgiri, Medchal- Malkajgiri District

4. One CC to SRI SHEELAM ASHOK REDDY, Advocate. IOPUCI 5. Two CCs to GP FOR LAW LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] I

6. One CC to SRI SHASHI KIRAN PUSLURI, (SC FOR TSLSA). [OPUC] 7. One CC to SRI M.V.SURESH KUMAR, Advocate. [OPUC] 8. One CC to SRt M.V.PRATHAP KUMAR, Advocate. [OPUCI 9. Two CD Copies. BSK PMK HIGH COURT DATED t30l10l2A?s I t \ t ORDER WP.No.7968 of 2024 \ 2t t{0tl 2m i ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION lar-