Back
2017 Supreme(AP) 518
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, K. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, JJ.
Nallala Anjavva, W/o Abbaiah - Petitioner
Vs.
The Lok Adalat Bench at Sircilla - Respondents
WRIT PETITION No. 25121 OF 2017
Decided On : 27-10-2017
For the Petitioners: Sri T. Surya Satish
For the Respondent: Sri J. Anil Kumar, Sri Venkateshwar Varanasi, Sri T. Balamohan Reddy, Sri K. Venu Madhav, Sri P.V. Narayana Rao
Headnote:
Ancestral Property – Lok Adalat Award – Advocates in collusion with respondent Nos. 2 to 22 forged the petitioners thumb impressions and made false representations in order to usurp their 1/3rd share in a fraudulent manner - petitioners have alleged that no notice was served on them to appear either before the civil Court in which the suit was instituted or before the Lok Adalat. The petitioners also made certain allegations against respondent Nos. 22 and 23, the advocates who appeared for some of the respondents in the suit – Grievance of the petitioners is that behind their back, respondent No. 2 in collusion with respondent No. 19 to 21 got the suit referred to Lok Adalat and without any notice to them, the Lok Adalat passed Award – Held, Under Regulation 39 (2) of 1999 Regulations, the parties to the dispute shall be required to affix their signatures or, as the case may be, thumb impressions on the Award of the Lok Adalat. In our opinion, the expression "the parties in dispute" is referable to the parties in original dispute before the Court which has been referred to Lok Adalat. If a few of the parties to the dispute are allowed to file compromise petition to the exclusion of other parties, that would give raise to serious complications leading to litigation taking different turns. Such an approach is neither contemplated under the Act or the Regulations made thereunder nor the same is desirable. After all the intendment of law in envisaging settlement of disputes before Lok Adalats is to ensure that all the parties to the dispute arrive at a mutually agreed settlement, so that there will not be further litigation in relation to the dispute which was initially brought before the Court and later referred to the Lok Adalat. Even if some of the parties to the dispute originally instituted remained ex parte, that hardly justifies the Lok Adalat to ignore them while considering passing of the Award, for even the parties who are set ex parte also have certain rights to pursue their claim further by filing an application for setting aside the ex parte orders or even by filing appeals on merits if they suffer an order or judgment adverse to their interests. Therefore, the fact that the petitioners were set ex parte would not justify respondent No. 1 to allow some of the parties to the suit to enter into a compromise and pass the Award. This course, instead of settling the dispute between the parties once and for all, would have the effect of opening the floodgates of litigation – Petition allowed
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.
This Writ Petition is filed by defendant Nos. 4 and 5 in O.S. No. 146 of 2012 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Sircilla filed for partition and separate possession of agricultural land admeasuring Ac. 2.06 guntas in survey No. 373 of Venkatraopally of Narsingapur Revenue Village filed by respondent No. 2.
2. The petitioners pleaded that petitioner No. 1 is daughter-in-law of late Baswaiah and petitioner No. 2 is her daughter. They have claimed interest over 1/3rd share in the joint ancestral property left behind by Sri Nallala Sayebu which is subject matter of the suit. It is their further pleaded case that recently they have noticed that respondent No. 21 started construction over a part of the suit schedule property; that when they objected to the same, the said respondent informed them that he acquired rights over part of the suit schedule land on the strength of Lok Adalat Award dated 06-01-2017 passed by respondent No. 1 and that the subsequent information gathered by them revealed that the advocates in collusion with respondent Nos. 2 to 22 forged the petitioners' thumb impressions and made false representations in order to usurp their 1/3rd share in a fraudulent manner. The petitioners have alleged that no notice was served on them to appear either before the civil Court in which the suit was instituted or before the Lok Adalat. The petitioners also made certain allegations against respondent Nos. 22 and 23, the advocates who appeared for some of the respondents in the suit. For disposal of the Writ Petition, these allegations need not be considered.
3. The sum and substance of the grievance of the petitioners is that behind their back, respondent No. 2 in collusion with respondent No. 19 to 21 got the suit referred to Lok Adalat and without any notice to them, the Lok Adalat passed Award on 06-01-2017. The gist of the Lok Adalat Award has been referred to in para No. 9 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition which reads as under:
"The A Part admeasuring Ac. 0.20 Gts. was allotted to Plaintiff, Defendant No. 2 and 14 to 18 together jointly and part B land admeasuring Ac. 0.02 Gts was allotted to Defendant No. 20 and C Part admeasuring Ac. 1.00 Gts. was allotted to Defendant No. 21 and D Part admeasuring Ac. 0.03 Gts. was allotted to Defendant No. 10 and E Part admeasuring Ac. 0.04 Gts. was allotted to Defendant No. 8 by recording that an extent of Ac. 1.31 Gts. is available after the Respondent of the land got merged with PWD road situated to the south of the suit schedule property. It was further recorded in the Compromise that the sale deeds Document Nos. 4487/2011 dated 05-08-2011, 4488/2011 dated 05-08-2011, 5071/2011 dated 27-08-2011, 5321/2011 dated 03-09-2011 and 329/2012 dated 20- 01-2012, registered gift settlement deed Document No. 3842/2012 dated 12- 06-2012 and other registered sale deeds bearing Document Nos. 3843/2012 dated 12-06-2012, 3844/2012 dated 12-06-2012, 6332/2015 dated 13-11-2015 and 6071/2016 dated 28-09-2016 of the office of the Sub-Registrar Vemulawada are declared as null and void in terms of the compromise."
4. Respondent Nos. 22 to 24 filed separate counter affidavits. Being the advocates, their counter affidavits may not be of relevance. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 21 on behalf of himself and respondent Nos. 19 and 20, they have denied the allegation that no notices were served on the petitioners in the suit. He has further stated that the petitioners were not at all parties to the Lok Adalat Award dated 06-01-2017 and that therefore the said Award has not been passed against them.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has not been present during the two hearings including that of today. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 6 to 8, 10, 11 and 19 to 21 submitted that as the petitioners were set ex parte in the suit and the Award not being passed against them, they cannot be treated as aggrieved parties and that
