Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, J.

1. On the last date, the parties were put to the notice that the Petition will be taken up forthwith for final disposal. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the first to third Respondents. We have also heard the learned AGP for the State fourth Respondent.

2. Rule. The Advocate for the first to third Respondents waives service. The learned AGP also waives service for the State. Taken up forthwith for final disposal. The challenge in this Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to a decree/Award passed by a Lok Adalat in a suit on the basis of the consent terms which were filed before the regular Court few months before the impugned decree was passed.

3. The Petitioners in this Petition are the Plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No. 14 of 2012. The suit was filed for injunction in relation to the agricultural lands described in Paragraph 1 of the Plaint. On 17th March 2012, the Petitioners and the first to third Respondents herein (who are Defendants in the said suit) filed consent terms. On the very day, the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Sangola, District Solapur, passed an order recording that the contents of the compromise have been admitted by the parties. However, he directed the parties to produce relevant documents of the proceedings pending under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short "the said Act") in respect of the suit lands. The said order shows that the learned Judge was no inclined to pass a decree in terms of the consent terms without examining the proceedings under the said Act.

4. It appears that notwithstanding the said order, the suit was placed before the Maha Lok Adalat held on 29th July 2012. It appears that before the Maha Lok Adalat, a compromise was purportedly recorded in terms of the same consent terms and an award was made. Accordingly, a decree was passed by the learned Judge on 29th July 2012 in terms of the consent terms.

5. It is not necessary to go into the various grounds of challenge for the reasons which we have recorded in this judgment.

6. In view of the bar created by Subsection (2) of Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short "the said Act of 1987"), there is no remedy available to a party for challenging the award/order passed by the Maha Lok Adalat and, therefore, the present Petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. It will be necessary to make a reference to the order dated 17th March 2012 passed by the learned Trial Judge on the consent terms filed by the Petitioners and the first to third Respondents. The said order reads thus:

"Heard both sides. They all are present. Identification duly made contents of compromise are admitted voluntarily when read out to parties matter is settled through advocate mediator. Hence verified keep for order, with direction to parties to file all relevant papers from tenancy proceedings pending before Revenue Authority."

8. The said order makes it clear that without perusal of the proceedings under the said Act in relation to the suit lands, the learned Trial Judge was not willing to pass a decree in terms of the compromise. Therefore, even after the verification of the consent terms, the learned Trial Judge kept the suit pending for passing orders after perusal of the proceedings under the said Act.

9. One of the clauses in the consent terms is regarding surrender of tenancy rights by the Petitioners to the first to third Respondents. It is perhaps due to this clause that the learned Trial Judge did not pass a decree in terms of the compromise though the compromise was verified by him. After having perused the consent terms, we are of the view that the learned Judge was right in doing so as there was a clause in the consent terms providing for the surrender of agricultural tenancy.

10. When the consent terms are filed before a Civil Co