Exclusion of necessary parties in settlement proceedings undermines legal rights, necessitating their inclusion to ensure just outcomes in family property disputes.

JUDGMENT :

S.K.PANIGRAHI, J.

1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks annulment of the proceedings before the Permanent and Continuous Lok Adalat, Kendrapara contending that his intentional exclusion was designed to deprive him of his rightful share in the property.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The dispute involves the family of Bhagabat Prasad Tripathy, who has four sons: Lingaraj (the petitioner), Debaraj (Opposite Party No. 1), Brajaraj (Opposite Party No. 3), and Prithviraj (Opposite Party No. 4).

(ii) The property in question is located in Jaipur, Kendrapara, under Khata No. 333 with Plot Nos. 1013, 1014, and 1189/2196, covering an area of 0.44 acres. This property was purchased by Bhagabat Prasad on 02.07.1988.

(iii) Proceedings were initiated before the Permanent and Continuous Lok Adalat, Kendrapara, on 24.12.2018, and the matter was settled swiftly on 19.01.2019 through a compromise between the plaintiff and the defendants.

(iv) In the proceedings before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Opposite Party No. 1, Debaraj, was the plaintiff, while Opposite Party Nos. 2 (Bhagabat Prasad), 3 (Brajaraj), and 4 (Prithviraj) were named as defendants.

(v) The petitioner, Lingaraj, who is also a son of Bhagabat Prasad, was not included as a party in the Lok Adalat proceedings. He claims that the compromise and award prejudicially affected his rights because he was deliberately excluded from the settlement.

(vi) The disputed property, purchased by Bhagabat Prasad, consists of both homestead land and a residential building that has been used by the joint family.

(vii) During the Lok Adalat case, it was argued that Bhagabat Prasad purchased the property by selling gold ornaments gifted during the birth ceremonies of Debaraj, Brajaraj, and Prithviraj.

(viii) Aggrieved by the Lok Adalat’s award, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking its annulment, arguing that his deliberate exclusion from the proceedings was intended to deprive him of his rightful share in the property.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) The petitioner submitted that the property in question is joint family property, acquired for the benefit of the entire family. His exclusion from the settlement violated his rights as one of the sons of Bhagabat Prasad.

(ii) He further submitted that the Lok Adalat proceeding deliberately excluded him and suppressed facts about his existence and legal rights in the property.

(iii) The petitioner contended that the case was rushed through the Lok Adalat within 25 days, which suggests a deliberate attempt by the plaintiff and the other defendants to finalize the settlement without his knowledge.

(iv) He further contended that his father, Bhagabat Prasad who was 76 years old at the time of the proceedings, was misled by Debaraj, Brajaraj, and Prithviraj into consenting to the compromise.

III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) It is submitted that the petitioner has no Locus Standi to challenge the Lok Adalat’s award because the property belongs solely to Opposite Party No. 1. As the lawful owner, Opposite Party No. 1 has the right to enter into a settlement and part with his property as he deems fit.

(ii) It is further submitted that the property was acquired by Opposite Party No. 1 through a registered sale deed. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim rights over this self-acquired property.