V.V.S. Rao, J.

1. The writ petition is filed assailing the Award dated 05.09.2009 in Pre-Litigation Case No.6 of 2009 passed by the Lok Adalat Bench, Taluka Legal Services Committee, Narayanapet (hereafter referred to as Lok Adalat), and for a direction to set aside the said Award. Initially, the Lok Adalat, one U.Basanth Reddy (brother of the petitioner), and the Tahsildar, Makthal Mandal, were shown as the respondents. Subsequently, by order dated 16.08.2010, in W.P.M.P.No.25082 of 2010, respondent Nos.4 to 6, who are the sons of the petitioner, and respondent No.7, who is another brother of the petitioner, were impleaded.

2. The brief background facts are as follows. The petitioner, respondent Nos.2 and 7 are the sons of late Nagi Reddy. His father Malla Reddy was owner of land admeasuring Acs.98.39 guntas in Satyawar Village of Makthal Mandal in Mahabubnagar District. He and his three sons constituted Hindu joint family. The three brothers succeeded to the property of Malla Reddy, who died intestate. It is the case of the petitioner that when the second respondent claimed exclusive ownership of the entire land, the other two brothers demanded partition. Even before steps could be initiated in that direction, the petitioner received a notice dated 26.03.2010 from the Lok Adalat along with a copy of the impugned Award.

3. The petitioner would contend that the said Award was passed behind the back of the petitioner and respondent No.7, that they never received any notice, they never appeared before the Lok Adalat and that they never entered into any settlement or compromise with the second respondent. Alleging that after obtaining the impugned Award, the second respondent is trying for change of revenue records, the present writ petition is filed.

4. After receiving notice, the second respondent on the one hand, and respondent Nos.4 to 7 on the other filed separate counters. The second respondent projected the case which is as follows. There have been family disputes among the brothers with regard to the share of the property after death of the father. When the petitioner and his three sons tried to dispossess, he filed O.S.No.67 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Narayanpet, for injunction. The said suit was, however, withdrawn with the intervention of the elders. Thereafter, the second respondent made an application to the District Collector on 27.07.2009 bringing to his notice about the partition of the properties in 1992 itself. This letter was referred to the Lok Adalat for resolving the dispute which was registered as Pre-Litigation Case No.6 of 2009. At that stage, the village elders and well wishers settled the matter between the parties in the meeting held on 21.08.2009. The three brothers agreed for the agreement and a draft of the “Bhoo Bhaga Parishkara Patram” (land dispute settlement agreement) was prepared. The three brothers signed it in the presence of eighteen witnesses.

5. At that stage, the Lok Adalat issued a notice on 24.08.2009 directing the petitioner and the second respondent to appear before them. As the parties have already entered into an agreement, which was produced before the Lok Adalat, the Chairman-cum-Senior Civil Judge, Taluka Legal Services Committee, requested the Lok Adalat to pass the Award as per the agreement. Accordingly, the Award was passed on 05.09.2009. The second respondent also asserts that the signature of the petitioner was not taken in the column meant for the respondent, as he did not take the copy of the Award. But, the parties to the Award were present and signed the settlement, which was the basis, and therefore, the Award cannot be invalidated on that ground.

6. Respondent Nos.4 to 7 while stating that there was no information or knowledge about the Pre-Litigation Case, alleged that the said Award is not based on mutual understanding, and therefore, it is not binding on them. They also alleged that the second respondent suppressed and m