M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J.

1. One Atluru Chandra Sekhara Rao, petitioner herein and defendant in OS No. 68 of 2017 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada, filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award passed by the Mandal Legal Services Committee. Gudivada under the provisions of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short, 'Act').

2. The first respondent filed OS No. 68 of 2017 claiming declaration that the Revocation Deed dated 19.3.2012 bearing document Nos. 2689/2012 and 2691/2012 are null and void, inoperative and consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants including the petitioner from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, alleging that, on 8.2.2012 the defendant has executed two settlement deeds, settling the plaint schedule properties vide document Nos. 1213/2012 and 1214/2012 and by virtue of the said documents, item No. 1 which is the agricultural land retained with the defendant during his life time and he is entitle to enjoy the usufruct from the same and whereas, plaint schedule item No. 2 is put in the possession of the plaintiff on the same day and thus the plaintiff has become the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property by virtue of the said documents. Thus, the plaintiff is enjoying the plaint schedule property from the date of execution of the documents acting upon the settlement deed. The petitioner had got only right to enjoy the property during lifetime.

3. The first respondent herein during his lifetime came to know that the defendant at the instigation of his daughter Gullapalli Naga Mani took advantage, defendant got executed revocation deeds and thereafter the plaintiff obtained certified copies on 6.3.2017, having gone through the said documents dated 19.3.2012, the plaintiff came to know the factum of cancellation of document i.e., Settlement Deeds by executing cancellation deeds bearing document Nos. 2689/2012 and 2691/2012 and though those deeds were executed unilaterally by the defendant, the documents are non est in the eye of law and not binding upon the plaintiff, since the plaintiff is not a party to the said cancellation deeds and sought the relief stated above.

4. While the suit was pending before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada, the parties appears to have entered into compromise and to record compromise at request of both the parties, the Mandal Legal Services Committee referred OS No. 68 of 2017 for settlement under Section 20 of the Act. The terms of compromise were also reduced into writing and placed before the Mandal Legal Services Committee, requesting to record compromise, in view of the settlement they arrived before the Mandal Legal Services Committee duly signed by Atluru Padmavathi, legal representative of one Madhusudhana Rao, who died during pendency of the suit and Atluru Chandra Sekhara Rao, affixing their thumb impression and also their respective Advocates. In terms of the compromise, award dated 27.4.2018 was passed by the Mandal Legal Services Committee in Lok Adalat Bench, Gudivada in Lok Adalat case Register No. 269 of 2018 and thus in view of settlement, the suit was disposed of.

5. The petitioner filed the present writ petition on the ground that document Nos. 1213/2012 and 1214/2012 dated 8.2.2012 were obtained by playing fraud, coercion and undue influence on the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner got cancelled those documents by executing a registered cancellation deed. The deceased/first respondent herein filed OS No. 68 of 2017 to declare that those cancellation deeds are null and void and on reference, the Mandal Legal Services Committee passed an award, though it lacks adjudicating power in view of Section 22(1) of the Act and no Rules are prescribed or setting-aside the award procured in the circumstances stated above and that, no appeal lie against such an award, in view of the in