C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.

These writ petitions are filed by the same petitioner feeling aggrieved by three separate Lok Adalat Awards in three separate pre-litigation cases.

2. For disposal of these writ petitions, the facts need not be discussed in detail. It will suffice to note that the petitioner alleged fraud against the private respondents in obtaining the impugned Lok Adalat Awards. Before approaching this Court by way of the present writ petitions, the petitioner filed three separate suits in the Court of the Principal District Judge, Nellore. These three suits were rejected at C.F. Stage by the District Court, mainly placing reliance upon the judgment in Batchu Subba Lakshmi v. Sannidhi Srinivasulu, (2010) 1 ALD 277 (DB).

3. Under section 21(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of civil court. Under sub-section (2) thereof, every award made by the Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute and no appeal shall lie to any court against the award. An identical issue came to be decided by a Division Bench of this Court in Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and others v. Bhargavi Constructions, 2015 (5) ALT 476. In that case, the suit was filed for a declaration that paragraph 18 of the compromise recorded in the suit by the Lok Adalat insofar as it related to a certain piece of land was concerned as nonest in law for having been obtained by fraud and collusion. Defendant Nos.31 and 32 in the said suit filed I.A. No.894 of 2010 for rejection of the plaint. The civil court has accordingly rejected the plaint on the ground that in view of the judgment in Batchu Subba Lakshmi (1 supra) a suit for declaration to set aside the Lok Adalat Award by a party to the earlier suit is not maintainable. After a detailed discussion, the Division Bench held as follows:

"The award passed by the Lok Adalat in a pending litigation, or in a pre-litigation case, is not, ordinarily, amenable to judicial review. But when an award of the Lok Adalat is obtained by misrepresentation, fraud or without due compliance with the provisions of the Act and that it was not preceded by a compromise/settlement, it can be challenged in a Writ Petition [Sri Durga Malleswari Educational Society v. District Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalat), Vijayawada, 2012 (3) ALT 211 (DB)]. The challenge to the award of the Lok Adalat, in proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can be entertained only at the behest of parties to the settlement/compromise before the Lok Adalat, and not by anyone else [Sanjay Kumar v. Secretary, City Civil Court Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad, 2010 (3) ALT 289 (DB)]. The parties to the compromise or settlement, which is the basis for the award of a Lok Adalat, are entitled to challenge the award. Ordinarily, a third party cannot challenge the award in a writ petition, even if such an award causes prejudice. The remedy of such party would be to institute a separate suit within the period of limitation prescribed under law for necessary redressal, and seek an appropriate decree. As a Civil Court can even declare that an earlier decree of the Court is not binding on the party before it, there can be no objection for a third party to institute a suit in a Civil Court seeking a declaration that the award of Lok Adalat is not binding on him. There may, however, be extraordinary cases where a third party is meted with injustice at the behest of two or more conniving and colluding parties who may have obtained an award of the Lok Adalat by fraud or misrepresentation only to defeat the rights of a third party. In such cases, such a third party may maintain a Writ Petition. In such cases, there should be prima facie evidence of fraud or misrepresentation or collusion in obtaining the award of the Lok Adalat. Even if such allegations are made, and the question involves complicated questions of fact requiring voluminous evidence, the third part