The court emphasized that a Lok Adalat cannot consider a unilateral memo and must ensure that proper procedures are followed, including consent from both parties and conducting inquiries.

ORDER :

(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.)

1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following reliefs:

(i) To quash the order dated 13.11.2013 of the Annexure-D on the file of II Addl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Tumkuru, through the order of the Lok Adalat, Tumkur, in C.Mis.1134/2013.

(ii) To hold the death certificate as per Annexure-E dated 31.01.2014 of the I Respondent through his subordinate officer as void in law and not enforceable.

(iii) To issue the writ of certiorari or such other writ or pass such other order as the Hon’ble court may deem fit to grant under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The petitioners claim to be the absolute owners of land in Sy.No.22/2, measuring 3 acres and 5 guntas, situated at Burudagatta Village, Kora Hobli, Tumkur Taluk—the predecessor of the petitioner, viz., Sri.Siddalingaiah, of whom the petitioners are the legal heirs, had purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 03.04.1979 from Smt.Honnamma.

3. The second Respondent, Sri.Mahadevaiah, claiming to be the grandson of late Smt.Honnamma, had applied for the issuance of her Death Certificate alleging that she had expired on 15.06.1975.

4. An endorsement was issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, acting as a Registrar of births and deaths stating that no such registration of the entry could be made in such a belated manner. It is in that background that Sri.Mahadevaiah filed an application before the II Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Tumkuru in C.Misc.1134 of 2013 seeking for a direction to the Respondent therein, i.e., the Deputy Tahsildar, to issue the Death Certificate of petitioner's grandmother by name Smt.Honnamma, wife of Sri.Kalaiah, stated to have expired in her residence on 15.06.1975 and to make necessary entries in the office ledger of the Deputy Tahsildar.

5. In the said matter, notice was issued to the first Respondent, Deputy Tahsildar. Despite service, the said Deputy Tahsildar was absent when the matter was taken up on 11.11.2013, and thereafter the matter was posted on 13.11.2013 for enquiry/evidence. On the very same day, it is stated that the matter was referred to Lok Adalat at Tumkur for disposal, wherein the second Respondent, Sri.Mahadevaiah filed a memo styled as a joint memo stating that the Respondent agreed to enter the date of death as prayed for by the petitioner and as such, Sri.Mahadevaiah requested Lok Adalat to accept the Memo. The said Memo was in turn accepted by the Lok Adalat and an order was passed virtually directing the Respondent to act as per the joint Memo and the case was closed.

6. On the basis of the said order, Sri.Mahadevaiah wrote to the first Respondent who issued the Death Certificate of Smt.Honnamma indicating her date of death to be 15.06.1975. Challenging the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

7. The submission of Sri.T.Govindaraja, learned counsel for the Petitioners, is that:

7.1. The said Smt.Honnamma had expired in the year 1985 after executing a registered sale deed in favour of the father of the petitioner on 03.04.1979. Respondent No. 2 has used this novel method for obtaining registration of the death of Smt.Honnamma, indicating the date of death to be 15.06.1975 and on that basis, the execution of the registered sale deed dated 03.04.1979 is sought to be denied by Sri.Mahadevaiah. His submission is that there is a clear and categorical abuse of the process of Court and Lok Adalat resorted to by Sri.Mahadevaiah, re