ORDER :

1. The petitioner has assailed the judgment and decree/award dated 14.05.2016 passed in Civil Suit No. 12-A/2016 parties being “Dharam Singh Thakur Vs. Viranchi Toppo”, by the National Lok Adalat, Khandpeeth No. 05, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) on the ground that the said compromise judgment and decree/award has been obtained by playing fraud.

2. The facts of the present case are that the respondent filed a civil suit for specific performance of the contract in respect of suit land bearing survey No. 334/1, 334/2, 334/3, 335/1, 335/2, 336 & 337 admeasuring 3.962 hectares situated in Village Baghera, Patwari Circle No. 17, Revenue Circle Ghumka, Tahsil & District Rajnandgaon (C.G.). The suit was filed on the ground that the petitioner entered into an agreement to sell with the respondent for a sale consideration of Rs.3 lacs and the deed was executed on 16.12.2013. Rs.20,000/- was given as earnest money and the balance amount of Rs.2,80,000/- was to be given at the time of execution of the sale deed and the sale deed was to be executed within one year. Rin-Pustika was missing; therefore, the petitioner executed an agreement for extension of time on 20.07.2014 and 11.02.2015. In between, possession was handed over to the respondent on 20.07.2014. It is further stated that when after the expiry of the prescribed period, the sale deed was not executed, a legal notice was sent to the petitioner/defendant and thereafter, a civil suit was filed on 24.02.2016. The petitioner/defendant appeared before the learned trial Court on 20.04.2016 and on the request of both the parties, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat which was scheduled on 14.05.2016. On 14.05.2016, both the parties appeared before the National Lok Adalat and a joint compromise application was filed. On the basis of the terms and conditions of the compromise application, the National Lok Adalat passed an award/decree. According to the terms and conditions of the compromise application, the petitioner/defendant will execute the registered sale deed in the respect of land in question within six months and the remaining consideration will be paid at the same time.

3. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner/defendant belongs to an aboriginal tribe and the land in question was purchased by him in the year 2005-2006 through a registered sale deed. He would further submit that at the time of negotiation, some other persons were present and the total consideration amount was Rs.30 lacs, but it was agreed between the parties that to save stamp duty, sale deed of Rs.3 lacs would be executed. He would further submit that the respondent/plaintiff has not paid the balance amount and filed a suit for specific performance of the contract. He would further submit that as per guidelines, the rate of one-acre land of the same locality was Rs.4,66,000/- and the market value was Rs.5,00,000/- per acre in the year 2013 and the total value of the suit land was about Rs.50 lacs. He would further submit that the witnesses namely Rakesh Soni and Ajay Garudik have also played fraud against him. His next contention is that the petitioner is an illiterate villager living in a remote area and therefore, he could not understand the terms and conditions of the compromise application. He would also submit that the learned Lok Adalat ought to have complied with the provisions of Section 20(4) of the Legal Services Act. He would further submit that though there was a transaction between two tribes, in the absence of permission from the competent authority according to the provisions of Section 165(6) of the Land Revenue Code, the entire transaction is void. Mr Paranjpe has placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Phulchand Exports Limited Vs. O.O.O. Patriot, (2011) 10 SCC 300; in the matter of State of Punjab and Another Vs. Jalour Singh and Others, (2008) 2 SCC 660; and judgments