High Court · 2025

4. The State Legal Services Authority, Rep. by its Secretary High Court Buildings, Hyderabad

5. The Lok Adalat Bench at Kothagu-dem, (constituted by M rndal Legal services 9^o1fj!tgp, Kothagud.em) Undei Section 19 of Legat Sen ices nutfiority Act,-' '1987) Kothagudem, Khammam District

6. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kothagudem, Khammam D strict 7. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kothagudem, Khammam District B. The Sub-Registrar, Kothagudem, Khammam District ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in lhe affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an order, orders Direction more particularly,rne in the nature of writ of Mandamus, to set aside the Award dated 07-12-20.13 passed by the 5th Respondent in Lok Adalat case No. 21s of 2013 (os No. 33112013 on the file of senior civil Judge, Kothagudem, Khammam District) in view rf the pendency of the litigation in between me and the 'r st Respondent vide s.,,\. No.122 of 20i 0, passed the impugned award, is ilegar, arbitrary and agains,t the principres of natural justice. LA. NO: 2 OF 20't5(w PMP. NO:239 62 0F 201s) Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circu nstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may t:e pleased to direct the respondents 6 to 8 not to issue patta in favour.of the 2nd rrrspondent pending disposal of the above writ petition l.A. NO: 3 OF 2015( WPMP. NO:23965 0F 20.t5) Petition under section r 51 cpc praying that in the circurnstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to grant stay of all further proceedings incruding arienation encumber rward property to any third parties pending disposal of main writ petition Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI HUSSAIN AAMIR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRt p. RAMA SHANKAR SHARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SC FOR MUNlCtpALlTy Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI K. CHIDAMBARAM Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 and 7: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUM.6.R SIIAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DT)VI EADA Writ Petition No. I 8515 of2Ol5 ORDER: Per the Hon'ble S.i Justrce Abhrltc)ttd Rumar Sllr,uiti) Aggrieved by the award, dated 07.12.2013 passed in Lok Adalat Case No.215 of 2O3 (O.S.No.331 of 20 13) on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, (othagudem, Khammam District, the present Writ Petition is liled

2. Heard Sri Hussain Aamir, learned couns;el appearing for the petitioners.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had contended that respondent Nos. I and 2 got < ornpromised uide O.S.No.331 of 2Ol3 before the Lok Adalat and the same was numbered as Lok Adalat Case No.ll15 of 2013, which is detrimental to the interest of the petitioners.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners rad further contended that petitioner No.1 has prefer red Second Appeal vide S.A.No.122 of 2O10 before this Court and in the said-SEcond Appeal, respondent No.1 ani respondent 2 ! No.2 have also got impleaded as a party respondents in the said Second Appeal and the same is pending. Learned counsel further contended that even if petitioner No.1 succeeds in the Second Appeal, the award passed by the Lok Adalat might not come in his way. Therefore, with the leave of the Court, he is challenging the award, dated

07.12.2013 passed by the Lok Adalat.

5. This Court, having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, is of the view' that slnce respondent Nos.1 & 2 got impleaded as party respondents in the said Second Appeal, the award passed by the Lok Adalat will be subject to the outcome of the Second Appeal filed by petitioner No.1. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition. However, it is made clear that since petitioner No. 1 and respondent Nos.1 and 2 are already parties to the Second Appeal, the rights of the parties would be determined, subject to the result of Second Appeal preferred by petitioner No. 1. 3

6. With the above observations, the Wri.. petition closed. No order as to costs. 1S

7. As a sequel, miscellaneous application,; pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// r SD/- T.JAYASREE DEq!-ry-BEGls+RAR- .\, ISECTION OFFICER

1. One CC to Sri Hussian Aamir, Advocate t-OI-\]91, i. o;; cc to sri K. chidambaram Advocate toPUCl 5. iwo cC to fne GP for Revenue, High Court for the 4. oh; CC to'Sri P. Rama Shankara Sharma, Advoca S. One CC to SC for MunicipalitylOPucl 6. Two CD Copies HvderabadlOUT] To, TJ KV Frth- State :f Telangana, at te [OPJC] HIGH COURT DATED:1910312025 I I ORDER WP.No.18515 of 2015 ,oR IHE SIA ac Q c () t f (. ,/ 16 Jljltl 2M /, T r'\_i a? CLOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS t,t a\s\'-{