IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P. NAVEEN RAO, J. SREENIVAS RAO, JJ.
Gaddagunti Rajapathi, s/o. late Laxmaiah and Others – Petitioners
Versus
State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No.37519 Of 2022
Decided On : 29-12-2022
Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 – Section 19 – Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 – Recovery of possession – Seeking partition of suit schedule properties – Illegal, arbitrary and contrary to enactment – Held, Court finds that Lok Adalat passed award beyond scope of relief claimed in suit – However, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of case, Court are not inclined to set aside award passed by Lok Adalat on this ground – It is made clear that as petitioners are not parties in Lok Adalat award, same is not binding on them and is binding between parties only – Writ Petition disposed of.
ORDER :
J. Sreenivas Rao, J.
The petitioners have filed this writ petition for seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the Lok Adalat Award dated 25.10.2019 passed in S.A.No.93 of 2016 on the file of High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the enactment of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 and consequently to set aside the Lok Adalat Award dated 25.10.2019 passed in S.A.No.93 of 2016 and to pass such other suitable order as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. Heard Sri B.Narsimha Sharma, learned counsel representing Sri V.Ramesh Reddy learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Syed Kareemuddin learned counsel for the respondents No.4 & 5 and J.Anil Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the fathers of petitioners 1 and 2 along with other family members have filed suit in O.S.No.622 of 1981 on the file of the Court of Vth Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for seeking partition of the suit schedule properties admeasuring to an extent of Acs.7.13 guntas in Survey Nos.44, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 54 to 60 situated at Saidabad village, Hyderabad, and the same was decreed on 19.04.1983 allocated the shares between the parties.
3.1. It is averred that the parties and their legal heirs in O.S.No.622 of 1981 had converted the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.00 in survey Nos.48, 50, 54 to 60 situated at Saidabad Revenue village, Hyderabad into plots. For the said purpose, Kothapeta Co-operative Housing Society Limited, bearing Regd.No.PB:830, Sankeshwar Bazar, Hyderabad was formed and the said society has allotted the plots in favour of the society members/purchasers and executed registered sale deeds. Thereafter, the plot owners formed “Sri Sai Ram Colony Welfare Association” vide Registration No.468 of 2000.
3.2. It is also stated that while making the layout in the name of Kothapet Co-operative Housing Society Limited, the Plot No.112/A admeasuring to an extent of 133.77 sq. yards is earmarked for “Sri Sai Ram Colony Welfare Association (Community Hall), thereafter the said Welfare Association has constructed compound wall and a room in the said plot and doing their daily activities. While the matter stood thus, the respondent No.4 executed a gift settlement deed in the name of his daughter; i.e., respondent No.5 herein vide document No.6689/2021 dated 24.09.2021 styling himself as the owner of the house bearing No.16-2-751/93/B/1/A/1, as if the same is constructed in Plot No.112/A, which is earmarked for community hall. The said house number was obtained by the respondent No.4 by playing fraud with the municipal authorities; moreover, in the gift settlement deed it is mentioned that the respondent No.4 acquired the said property by virtue of the award passed in S.A.No.93 of 2016, dated 25.10.2019. In fact, the said property is entirely different than the suit schedule property, as the respondents 3 to 7 colluded with each other and created documents to grab the plot No.112/A, which is earmarked for the community hall.
3.3. The petitioner further stated that the 3rd respondent has filed O.S.No.1865 of 2012 on the file of the Court of XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad seeking perpetual injunction against respondents 4, 6 and 7 on the ground that he is the owner and possessor of property bearing No.16-2-751/93/A/2/1, admeasuring 120 sq. yards in survey No.47 situated at Saidabad, Hyderabad, and the same was decreed on 21.05.2013. Aggrieved by the same the defendants filed A.S.No.383 of 2013 on the file of the Court of XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. It appears that the same was allowed on 30.06.2015. Aggrieved there by the same, third respondent filed S.A.No.93 of 2016 before this Court. S.A.No.93 of 2016 ended in compromise by the parties by filing joint compromise memo and the matter has been settled before the Lok Adalat, vide Award dated 25
The Lok-Adalat can settle disputes not included in pending suits, and non-registration of an award does not invalidate it.
Point of Law : Challenge to the award of Lok Adalat can be done only by filing a writ petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court and that too on very....
Point of law : Sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 stipulates that every Lok Adalat at the time of settlement or compromise between the parties shall be guided b....
The Lok Adalat lacked jurisdiction to entertain property disputes, rendering its Award invalid due to improper consent and unequal distribution of property.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.