Lok Adalat compromise decrees, though final under Section 21, can be set aside in writ jurisdiction if vitiated by fraud like non-service of summons and misrepresentation to illiterate disabled party, inconsistent with revenue records.

JUDGMENT :

SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the compromise decree passed in Lok Adalat in R.C.S. No.47 of 2016 dated 13.02.2016.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. H. V. Patil, submits that the petition was filed by the original petitioner, who was an aged person. During the pendency of the proceedings, the original petitioner expired and present petitioner Nos.1(1) to 1(4) have been brought on record as his legal heirs.

4. Learned counsel further submits that the compromise decree dated 13.02.2016 has been obtained by fraud and is liable to be set aside. He invited my attention to the Rojnama in R.C.S. No.47 of 2016 (page 34), to submit that respondent No.1 herein, namely Vasant Kamble, had filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction. In the said suit, Gangaram, Sheshrao, Ranganath and Dadarao were arrayed as defendant Nos.1 to 4.

5. He submits that as per the Rojnama, on 25^th January 2016, the learned Trial Court directed issuance of summons to the defendants and adjourned the matter to 29^th January 2016. However, no summons were in fact issued. On 29^th January 2016, though only the advocate for the plaintiff was present, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat. It is thus submitted that without service of summons upon the defendants, the matter was taken before Lok Adalat and a compromise came to be recorded by misrepresentation.

6. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the original petitioner is the exclusive owner of the suit property. However, by way of the alleged compromise, it was recorded that the land bearing Gat No.23/4/3 admeasuring 64R is ancestral property of the plaintiff and defendants, and that an oral partition had taken place on Gudipadwa 2015, whereby a portion admeasuring 11½ R was allotted to the plaintiff-Vasant Kamble. 7. Learned counsel further submits that the plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 to 4 (original defendants) are real brothers. The original petitioner/defendant no.1 was 82% disabled, illiterate person and was not in a position to understand the proceedings. It is submitted that the petitioner was the exclusive owner and possessor of land bearing Gat No.23/4/3 admeasuring 64 R situated at Village Mankhed, Tal. Ahmedpur, District Latur, which was granted to him under the Government scheme known as “Hadola Inam”. His name has been recorded since 1950 in the revenue record, including 7/12 extracts, reflecting him as the sole owner.

8. It is contended that the plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 to 4 have no concern with the said land. However, respondent No.1 instituted R.C.S. No.47 of 2016 seeking declaration and perpetual injunction. Though the present legal heirs are sons and daughters of the original petitioner, they were not impleaded as parties. The suit was filed with an intention to grab the property.

9. It is further submitted that though the Trial Court had directed issuance of summons, before such summons could be served, the matter was moved on 29.01.2016 and at the request of the respondent no.1/plaintiff, it was referred to Lok Adalat scheduled on 13.02.2016. The petitioner was taken before the Lok Adalat and his thumb impression was obtained on pre-prepared compromise terms by misrepresentation. Thus, the compromise decree is vitiated by fraud and deserves to be set aside and the suit be