IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
P. SAM KOSHY, N. TUKARAMJI, JJ.
Smt. Yachamaneni Boinpally Nirosha - Appellant
Vs.
The District Legal Services Authority - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 26223 of 2023, Writ Petition No. 13064 of 2024
Decided On : 27-01-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petitions filed to challenge lok adalat awards. (Para 1) |
| 2. issuance of writ of certiorari sought. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. background of the respective suits and settlements. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. petitioners argue fraud in lok adalat settlements. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. court's analysis of fraudulent claims and settlements. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. (Para 21) |
ORDER :
N. Tukaramji, J.
We have heard Mr. Vemuganti Mahesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Shashikiran Pusluri, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Legal Services Authority/respondent No.1 in both the writ petitions and Mr.Y.Rama Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3, 5 and 11 in W.P.No.26223 of 2023 and for respondent No.5 in W.P.No.13064 of 2024.
2. W.P.No.26223 of 2023 has been filed for issuance of writ in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for record in Lok Adalat Case No.250 of 2019 in O.S.No.220 of 2012 on the file of the I Additional District Judge at Karimnagar and to set aside the Lok Adalat Award dated 29.03.2019.
3. W.P.No.13064 of 2024 has been filed for issuance of writ in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for record in Lok Adalat Case No.1052 of 2017 in O.S.No.4 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar and to set aside the Lok Adalat Award dated 23.08.2017.
4. The writ petitioners are third parties to the respective suit proceedings.
5. W.P.No.26223 of 2023: The suit O.S.No.220 of 2012 was filed by the respondent Nos.2 to 12 herein seeking perpetual injunction against the respondent Nos.13 and 14 herein in respect of the suit schedule properties in item Nos.I to V, total admeasuring Ac.03.18 guntas in Sy.Nos.16/A to 16/D situated at Seetharampur Village of Karimnagar Mandal and District.
6. In the suit, Mr.Alla Kondal Reddy/the plaintiff No.10 and Mohammed Ibrahim @ Nawab/defendant No.1 (vendor of the writ petitioners) have amicably settled the issues in respect of item No.II and IV of the suit schedule property i.e. Ac.01.27 guntas in Sy.Nos.16/A to 16/D situated at Seetharampur village of Karimnagar Mandal and District whereby the defendant No.1 admitted the title and possession of the plaintiff No.10 over the suit schedule property of Item Nos.II and IV. Accordingly, on 29.03.2019 an Award has been passed.
7. W.P.No.13064 of 2024: The respondent No.2 herein as plaintiff (respondent No.13 in Writ Petition No.26223 of 2023 and defendant No.1 in O.S.No.220 of 2012) filed suit vide O.S.No.4 of 2011 against the respondent Nos.3 to 6 herein/defendant Nos.1 to 4 seeking declaration of title and perpetual injunction and also to declare the sale deed dated 25.09.2009 as null and void and not binding on him in respect of the suit schedule property admeasuring Ac.01.08 guntas in Sy.Nos.16/A to 16/D situated at Seetharampur Village of Karimnagar Mandal and District.
8. The suit was settled between the parties and Award was passed through Lok Adalat on 23.08.2017 whereby the respondent No.2/plaintiff in the suit O.S.No.4 of 2011 (vendor of the writ petitioners/respondent No.13 in W.P.No.26223 of 2023 and defendant No.1 in O.S.No.220 of 2012) had executed registered deeds relinquishing his rights in favour of the owners of the property and the defendant No.3/Nampally Nagarjuna Chary and Bukka Poshetty and affirmed registered agreement of sale-cum-GPA dated 04.07.2012 in favour of Nampelly Ravikanth, S/o.Nagarjuna Chary and the relinquishment deed on 15.12.2015. Additionally executed four registered relinquishment deeds and accepted that the suit schedule property has to be enjoyed by the defendants.
9. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that the petitioners (in W.P.No.13064 of 2024) had purchased 244.44 square yards, 201.66 square yards and 215 square yards from Mohammad Ibrahim/respondent No.2 (defendant No.1 in O.S.No.220 of 2012 and plaintiff in O.S.No.4 of 2011 hereinafter ‘the defendant No.1’) under registered sale deeds dated 30.01.2015, 24.08.2016
Claims of fraud must be substantiated with evidence to invalidate Lok Adalat settlements, which are generally recognized as valid unless proven otherwise.
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....
The Lok-Adalat can settle disputes not included in pending suits, and non-registration of an award does not invalidate it.
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....
Invalid Lok Adalat Award due to procedural flaws and failure to comply with registration requirements under relevant statutes.
Challenges to compromise decrees based on fraud must be made in the court that issued the decree, and such allegations require substantial proof.
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.