Point of Law : Challenge to the award of Lok Adalat can be done only by filing a writ petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court and that too on very limited grounds.

ORDER :

C. Praveen Kumar, J.

Aggrieved by the Award in Lok Adalat Case No.1001 of 2014, dated 23.07.2015 the present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

2. The averments in the affidavit filed, in support of the writ petition would show that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent are husband and wife and they were blessed with a male and female child. Differences arose between them which lead to 2nd respondent leaving the matrimonial home. Thereafter, the petitioner filed H.M.O.P.No.28 of 2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri for restitution of conjugal rights, which was ordered on 16.06.2014.

(i) While things stood thus, the 2nd respondent is alleged to have brought into existence a sham and collusive sale deed dated 10.02.2012, vide document No.805 of 2012 in favour of the 3rd respondent, in respect of a property admeasuring Ac.1.02 cents of wet land in R.S.no.36/1 of Velpuru Village, Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District as if it was sold to 3rd respondent. The 2nd respondent further filed O.S.No.70 of 2012, on the file of II Addl. District Judge at Vijayawada showing the petitioner as 1st defendant and the 3rd respondent as 2nd defendant seeking cancellation of the registered sale deed executed by her in favour of the 3rd respondent.

(ii) The petitioner herein filed written statement stating that he purchased the suit property for a valuable consideration out of his own earnings, and got the same registered in the name of the 2nd respondent when the relationship between them was normal. While matter stood thus, the petitioner came to know that the 2nd and 3rd respondents herein colluded together and got the suit referred to Lok Adalat without any notice or consent of the writ petitioner.

(iii) Pursuant to which, an Award came to be passed on 23.07.2015 wherein (i) the 3rd respondent agreed to pay Rs.37,00,000/- towards settlement out of which Rs.15,00,000/- was paid on 23.06.2015 and the remaining amount to be paid on the date of registration, in the name of third party or within 20 days from the date of compromise; (ii) the 2nd respondent/plaintiff agreed to give all clearances of the plaint schedule property as per the settlement, once the entire amount is paid and (iii) if the 3rd respondent fails to pay Rs.22,00,000/-, the 2nd respondent has a right to initiate proceedings for recovery of the said amount. The same is now under challenge before this Court on the ground of fraud, collusion, violative of the provisions of Legal Services Authorities Act and principles of natural justice.

3. A counter came to be filed by the 2nd respondent, disputing the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition.

4. Sri V.R.Avula, learned counsel for the petitioner, mainly submits that though the petitioner was a party to the suit in O.S.No.70 of 2012, but the same was referred to Lok Adalat without giving any notice to him. He further submits that the plaintiff in collusion with the 2nd defendant got the matter referred to Lok Adalat and then an Award came to be passed substantially affecting his rights. He took us through Sections 20 and 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, to show that before referring the matter to Lok Adalat, notice should be given to all the parties and only after obtaining their consent, the matter can be referred to Lok Adalat. He further submits that much prior to passing of the Award and reference to Lok Adalat, the petitioner herein filed O.S.No.173 of 2013 for title and permanent injunction in respect of the very same property. In the said case, the trial Court ordered status-quo, which was subsequently made absolute. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.2410 of 2019 and the judgment of High Court of Judicature for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.46801 of 2016, he would submit that when the subject matter of trial in the suit and the Award passed are different, the entire proceedings have to be