High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 ot lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleasedtoissueawrit,orderordirectionmoreparticularlyawritinthenatureof Mandamus decraring the action of the respondents more particurarry that of respondent No.4 in obtaining a Lok-Adalat award on 07 -O7 -2012 in O'S No 210 of 2OO7 before the respondent No 3 whereby and where under the father of unofficiat respondents agreed to give away a strip of land '18 feet in width as shownintheplanintheawardthroughthelandofthepetitionerstowardswestis challenged in this Writ Petition as being tainted with fraud and collusion and consequently being prayed for quashment' This action of the respondents is beingarbitrary,illegalandviolativeofArticlesl4,lg(1)(g)'and300-Aofthe Constitution of lndia and consequently set aside and quash the award of respondent No.3 dated 07-07-2012 in O S'No 210 of 2007 ' lA NO: 1 oF 2024 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 direct the respondent No'4 not to use the pathway of 18 feet in width towards the western side of the subject and as shown in the plan appended to the impugned award dated dated 07-07-2012 in O S'No'210 of 2OO7' Gounsel for the Petitioner: SRI VIJAY B'PAROPAKARI Counsel for the Respondent No"t: SRI D'SURENDER KUMAR' EEP TON LAW LEGTSLATIVE AFFAIRS Counsel for the Respondent No'2 & 3: SRI P'SHASHI KIRAN' SC FOR LEGAL SERVICES The Court made the following: ORDER THE IION'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR wRrT PETrIrolu No.29423 oF 20 24 Mr. Vijay B. paropakari, Iearnerl counsel appearing for the petitioncrs. Mr. D_ Surender Kumar, the learned Assistant Coverrrmenl l,lcader lor Law & kgislative Alfairs appcaring for thc responden I No. 1 . I;Oat*nt Kiran, the learned Stanriing Counsci appcaring lor thc respondent Nos.2 ORDER: (Per llon'ble Justice Moushumr Rharr:Lchar1,a) l The petitioners claim Lo bc rhe purchascrs of-a piece of immovable property from the faLhcr. of the respondent Nos.4 to 7 through a registered Salc Dcccl dated 14.O3.2OOZ . petitioners arc represented b_y their GpA holder, one Mr. Rachamedugu Naveen Ilao. The 2 The petitioners pralr for thc sctling aside or a l-ok Adalat Award dated OZ .O2.2O12 in O.S.No.2 tO ot 2Oj7. The petirioners seek to make out fraud and matcrial suppression on the part of the father of the respondent Nos.4 to 7 Lhereby nullifying the tmpugned Award

3. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are The Tclangana State Legal Services Authority and Thc i)istrict l_cgal Scrviccs Authority, Lok Adalat Bench. rcspc( r I ''vclr. ' 2 'lhc rcsPondent Nos'4 to 7 are not represented permitted lhc Pcliuoncrs

4.ACo-orclinatclJcnt:h,b1'anordcrdaledo5.03.2025' to tak<: cffcct substitrlted service by 'lhe publications were made in two way of PaPcr Publications newspapers (one Tclugu atr<i one Dnglish) on I 1.03.2025. The represented desPite 7 r,vcre how'evcr not respondent Nos'4 to substituted service '

5. Learned counscl appcaring lor the petitioncrs has made his submissions on thc mcrits oi tirt: Writ Petition The brief facts' as stated by counscl appcaring for the petitioners' are as follovt's:

6. The rcspondcnt No 4 filcd' a Suit (O'S'No 2\O of 2OO7) against his father (lhe vcnclor of thc petitioners) challenging a Gift Deed. executcd by his father on 10'10'1996' 'Ihe father of the respondent Nos 4 to 7 (dcfcndant in the Suit) filed a written statement opposing t he <:larm 't'hc Suit \vas thereafter No.4/Piaintiff and his Compromiscd betr'rrccn thc rcspondent father/ defendant under r'vhich the Ac.O.20 guntas of land' 'I'he petitioners claim that the defendant had sold a part of thc surrcnderecl iand to the petitioners in defend.ant surrendered n l 3 March 2O0Z , i.e. , five years prior to the impugned Lok Adalat Award. The defendant (lather o[ ttre respondent Nos.4 to 7) passed away in 2OIT .

7. Counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks to explain the delay in filing of lhe prcs(.nt Writ pcririon in 2024 against the impugned Lok Adalat Award datcd OZ.OT.2O12 in the following manner. Counsel places reliance on the relevant pleadings in the affidavit filed by the pe titioners in 1.hc Writ pe rition. B. According ro counscl, on lS.O4.2O2,+ thc GpA holder noticed that the subject land was bcing used as a road by the respondent No.4 who informed thr: pctitione rs that the said land formed part of Lhe impugnecr Lok Acralat Award. The GpA hoider was able to obtain all the relevant papers from the Trial Court in April 2024 and filed the Wrir petition on 21 .1O.2024.

9. The primary ground plcadcd on bchalf ol.the petitioners is that the father of the respondent Nos.4 to 7 (defcndant in the Suit) suppressed the Salc Deed executed in favour of the petitioners ald partcd with thc tand in favour of the respondent No.4. Counsel has not raised any other objection against the impugned Lok Adalat Award dated 07.O7.2012. 4

10. The Lok Adaiat Award dated 07 'O7 '2012 forms the subject matter of challcngc in thc prescnt case Thc Arn'ard clearly records that the plaintifl (Lhc rcspondent No'4 in the Writ Petition) and the defcndant (father of the respor-rdent Nos 4 to 7 in the Writ Petition) filcd a Joint Mcmo i e ' Memorandum of Compromisc which was rcad tlvcr and explained to the parties and that the partics (the plair-rtitf and the defendant) agreed to the same. 'I'he St-rit rvas dccrcccl on t'he terms contained in the Compromisc Memo,

11. The Award further states that the defendant agreed to leave a way with ccrtain dimensions in cxchange for the plaintiff agreeing to givc Ac.O 20 guntas out of the Suit land' The impugned Au'ard does nol menlion any fact with regard to the defendant (father o[ thc rcspor-rdcnt Nos'4 to 7) parting with the landinfar,ouroftl-rcresptlndcntNo.4/plaintiffwhichwas allegedly solcl by him to thc petitioners prior to the impugned Award.Hence,theentirecasesetupbythepetitionerswith regard to the defe ndant in O S No 2lO of 2OO7 parting with land in favour of the plaintiff clcspitc having alreacly sold part of the same land to l-he petitioners appcars to be without any basis' I I I i t l l ' I l.l 5

12. Even otherwise, the Suit is of 2OOT, the impugned Lok Adalat Award is ot O2.O7.2012 and the instant Writ petition was filed for setting asidc oI rhe Lok Adalat Award in October 2024. The reason for the delay of 12 yczrrs is equally facile, namely, that the petitioners, GpA holdcr. came to know only . on 15.04.2024 thar thc land, which was allegedly purchased by the petitioners, was being used by the respondent No.4 as for road purpose. The petitioners claim to be informcd of the impugned Award only upon making cnquirics u,ith thc rcsponclent No.4.

13. The case of the pctitioners, along u,ith the inorclinate delay, is further weakened by thc petitioners being strangers to the Suit and consequentially to rhe Compromise Memo signed by the plaintiff and the defendant therein. The pctitioners, allegation of fraud, raised after twelrrc years, is made on the strength of a statement without an,\. particulars. .lhe allegation of suppression of material l:rct rnadc agai,st thc dcfendant (Iather of the respondent Nos.4 to 7) is also a one _sided allegation since the defendant passed away in 2O1Z . Hence, the allegations of fraud and suppression arc nor only uncorroborated but are arso uncontested. As stated abovc, none of the respondent Nos.4 to 7 is represented. It is too well_settlcci to reitera.te that fraud has to 6 (' be established in the course of trial; the Court cannot accept such an allegation only orr thc basis ol a pleading made by a party. The cases t:ilt:<1 bv thc petitioucrs arc in fact against the petitioners on this Point'

14. A Co orclinatc Bcnch ol this Court in Smt B Lauanl|a alias B. Shoba u. 'l'lrc Stale of 'l'elonganat held that there must be pima facieevidence of fraud or misr<:presentation or collusion in obtarning the An'ard ol thr: l'ok i\dala1 and that complicated questions requiring volutnitrotts s 1'irl r'1-'t ccr ' the third party should be left to an appropriaLc Crvil Cour-L 'l'kre Supreme Court has also held that thc rlghts of third parties should be protected in civil litigation. Thc petiliongrs sl-rsrrlcl be lelcgated to a Civil Court to brlng out thc parti<:ul:rrs o{'lraud through trizrl since the petitioners arc third parties to thc Suit and have alleged fraud on thc part of thc defendan L' q'ho is no Lnore '

15. It is also signilicant that thc petil.ioners have not challenged the impugncd Lok Adalat Award under any of the Scrvices A uthorities AcL, 1987 The provisions of 'lhe Lcgal Aw.rrd satisfics thc conditions under impugned Lok Adalat sections 2O(3) and 2O$\ oi the 1987 Act which mandate a 'w.p. No, zg06 of zozl l: i Compromise or Settlement betweerr the parties and an Award being passed on that basis. The impugned Lok Adalat Award ciearly records the Memorardum of Compromise executed between the plaintiff and the defendant and that the Award was passed on the terms of such Compromisc. The Lok Adalat accordingly pr.ceeded t, decrcc thc suit as per the terms indicated in the Compromisc N,4cmo and thc rough sketch map.

16. We accordingly do not find an_t,merit in the Writ petition.

17. W.P.No.29423 of 2024, along rvith all connected applications, is accordingly dismissed. Interim orders, if aly, shall stard vacated. Therc shall bc no order as to costs. To, //TRUE COPYII SD/. B.REKHA RANI STANT REGISTRAR A SECTION OFFICER

1. One CC to SRt VIJAY B.PAROPAKARI, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRt P.SHASH| K|RAN, SC FOR LEGAL SERVTCES tOpUCl 3. Two CCs to Gp FOR LAW LEGfSLATTVE AFFA,RS, High Court for the State - ofTelangana at Hyderabad tou1-l

4.. Two CD Copies BSR M/ \ HIGH COURT DATED: 1710912025 cC TODAY ORDER WP.No.29423 ot 2024 l,'/ I r-_ | ./! ,:,: a-. ,-. i, L :, .$' s \. .(. , <'): , i'..ttt t...;?, ,<) DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION' WITHOUT COSTS \6 \tr