A.Hariprasad, J.

This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking police protection for life and property of the petitioners could have been easily disposed of by us like any other case of similar nature. But we stumbled across a glaring illegality in the manner in which the earlier civil proceedings between the contesting parties were handled in a Lok Adalath constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (in short, "the Act"). We are terribly disturbed by the fact that vagueness in the terms of settlement arrived at between the parties (that too relatives) in a Lok Adalath is the root cause for the subsequent disputes between them. Even now they are unable to harmonise their relationship and restore cordiality. If anybody blames the handlers of the Lok Adalath for prolonged agony of the parties, no one will be able to defend them for palpable reasons.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the contesting respondents. Learned Government Pleader was also heard.

3. Facts, in brief, are as follows: Petitioners are husband and wife and they belong to Madawa Brahmin community. Since the petitioners could not beget a biological child, they adopted a female child by name Dakshavani born on 16.06.1996. The adoption was approved in a legal proceedings before the XIII Additional City Civil Court, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore. The petitioners rechristened the child as Ankitha. She is now aged 18 years and studies for a postgraduate degree course. There were suits between the petitioners and the 8th respondent. 8th respondent and others filed O.S.No.109 of 1994 before the Sub Court, Kottarakkara against the 1st petitioner. 8th respondent filed another suit as O.S.No.58 of 1995 before the same court against the 1st petitioner. Both the suits were settled on 08.11.2008 in a Lok Adalath constituted under the provisions of the Act. Exts.P1 and P2 are the settlements arrived at between the parties on the basis of which separate awards were passed under the Act. Against Ext.P1 settlement, one Meenakshi Amma and Reshma Rao filed O.P.(C) No.4302 of 2012 before this Court and it is still pending. There were disputes in the execution proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2 settlement. The 1st petitioner had to approach this Court in O.P.(C) No.969 of 2011 and it was disposed of by judgment dated 28.06.2011, which is produced as Ext.P3. When the original petition was pending, it was referred to mediation. In the mediation, the parties again arrived at some preliminary agreement on 11.10.2012. However, the parties could not completely settle the disputes which arose out of matters once settled in the Lok Adalath.

4. As directed by this Court in Ext.P3, the Advocate Commissioner appointed from the executing court visited the property in order to execute the terms of settlement. 5th respondent and others obstructed the Commissioner and Surveyor. They allegedly misbehaved towards the petitioners and others. This was reported by the Advocate Commissioner in his report in E.P.No.90 of 2009 in O.S.No.58 of 1995 before the Sub Court, Kottarakkara. 1st petitioner challenged the order in the above execution petition allocating the properties and sought for a prayer to set aside the Commissioner's report. It was allowed as per Ext.P4 judgment passed in O.P.(C) No.1844 of 2015. Ext.P2 settlement had already been executed through court.

5. Petitioners submit that after execution of Ext.P2 settlement, respondents 5 to 11 and their henchmen continuously posed threat to life of the petitioners and their adopted daughter Ankitha. The respondents openly declared that they would not permit the petitioners to enjoy the property. Therefore, the petitioners filed Ext.P5 representation before the 1st respondent. Petitioners would contend that the respondents 5 to 11 are having much political clout and influence in the police department. Therefore, the petitioners are seeking police protection for their life and property.

6. The