The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of issuing notices to all parties before referring a matter to Lok Adalat for settlement and the need for the Lok Adalat to follow principles of natural justice, equity, and fair play.

ORDER:

(Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J.)

1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the legal validity of the award dated 17.03.2012 passed by the Lok Adalat Bench and to set aside the same.

2. The facts of the case show that the case on hand is yet another classic example of playing fraud in the Lok Adalats in obtaining awards, particularly, in suits filed for partition of the family properties.

3. Relevant facts necessary to dispose of the Writ Petition may briefly be stated as follows:

The plaintiff has filed the suit against 5 defendants for partition of the plaint schedule properties therein. The plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 4 in the suit are the siblings, whereas the 5th defendant is purchaser of some of the properties relating to the family. In the said suit, defendants 1 and 3 to 5 were set ex parte. Only 2nd defendant originally contested the suit. After defendants 1 and 3 to 5 were set ex parte, 2nd defendant who contested the suit did not oppose the claim of the plaintiff who claimed 1/5th share in the plaint schedule properties. Thereafter, on a joint memo filed by the plaintiff and 2nd defendant, the trial Court referred the matter to Lok Adalat for settlement. The trial Court did not order notices to defendants 1 and 3 to 5 before referring the matter to Lok Adalat. Even the Lok Adalat also did not issue notices to defendants 1 and 3 to 5 before settling the matter and passing the impugned award. In the settlement arrived at before the Lok Adalat, as per the impugned award, 1/5th share in the plaint schedule was allotted to the plaintiff. But the award is silent as to the share allotted to defendants 1 and 3 to 5. Therefore, the 3rd defendant in the said suit filed the present Writ Petition questioning the legal validity of the impugned award.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1-Legal Service Committee and the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 4, who are the plaintiffs and D2 in the said suit. None appeared for respondents 3 and 4 to 8.

5. The present case is clearly covered by the earlier judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of B.Srinatha Reddy v. District Legal Service Authority, Kadapa and others, 2019 (6) ALD 443 (D.B.). At paragraph Nos.36 to 40, the Division Bench of this Court held as follows:

36. So, the paramount question to be considered is whether the award passed by the Lok Adalat without issuing notice to the 2nd defendant is valid under law and whether it is legally sustainable or not. In order to test the validity of the said award on the said ground, it is appropriate to consider the relevant provisions in the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 and the Regulations framed thereunder. As per Section 19(5) of the 1987 Act, a Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of-(i) any case pending before the Court or (ii) any matter which is falling within the jurisdiction of and is not brought before any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organized. In the instant case clause (i) applies as it is a matter pending before the Court. The words used in the above Section 19(5) "parties to dispute" are significant to note which means all the parties to the dispute. So, the Lok Adalat has to make an endeavour to arrive at a compromise or settlement between all the parties to the dispute. Section 20 of the 1987 Act deals with cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats. It postulates that where any case is referred to as per clause (i) of subsection (5) of Section 19, if the parties thereof agree or if one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if the Court is prima facie satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance by the Lok Adalat, the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. Now, it is relevant