Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 1189
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, JJ.
Mutyam Ravinder Goud - Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Telangana and others - Respondents
I.A.No.1 of 2021 In/and Writ Petition No.6244 of 2020
Decided On : 01-09-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.K.Ramakotaiah, learned counsel resenting Mr.A.Jagan
For the Respondent: Mr.S.Ramesh, learned counsel representing Mr.P.Shashi Kiran, Mr.Y.V.L.N. Prasad Sharma, Mr.Maturi Aravind
A Lok Adalat award is binding unless proven to be obtained through fraud or misrepresentation, with the burden of proof resting on the party alleging such fraud.
Headnote:(A) Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 19(5)(i) and Section 20 - Lok Adalat award - Petitioner claimed award obtained by fraud, asserting familial connection and right to compensation - Award upheld as binding on parties, with the Court emphasizing no jurisdiction for such challenges outside evidence in civil court - Burden of proof on petitioner to establish fraud and misrepresentation for challenging the award. (Paras 25, 30, 32, 34, 36)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenges a Lok Adalat award for land acquisition, alleging fraud and lack of notice regarding the familial case.
Findings of Court:
The Lok Adalat award is a decree equivalent to a civil suit and legally binding.
Issues: The key issues were the ability of a third party to challenge a Lok Adalat award based on alleged fraudulent procurement and the relationship of the petitioner with the family members involved.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court confirmed that the burden lies on the challenging party to prove fraud; mere allegations are insufficient without substantial evidence.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's claim of ownership and fraud. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments on fraud in award proceedings. (Para 8 , 22 , 23) |
| 3. history of land acquisition and awards. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. legal nature of lok adalat awards. (Para 25 , 27 , 28) |
| 5. jurisdictional limitations of lok adalat. (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 6. burden of proof in claims of fraud. (Para 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 7. petition dismissal and binding nature of awards. (Para 36 , 37 , 38) |
ORDER:
Gadi Praveen Kumar, J.
We have heard Mr.K.Ramakotaiah, learned counsel representing Mr.A.Jagan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.S.Ramesh, learned counsel representing Mr.P.Shashi Kiran, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2, Mr.Y.V.L.N. Prasad Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 and Mr.Maturi Aravind, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6.
2. The Writ Petition is filed assailing the Lok Adalat Award dated 18-12-2019 passed in O.S.No.10 of 2019 by the 2nd respondent.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the land in Sy.No.83, 84d, 30, 31 of Jallipalli village of Kamanpur Mandal, Peddapalli District to an extent of Ac.29.30 gts belongs to petitioner’s grand father viz., Agaiah, whereas respondent Nos.9 and 10, who are the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Officer and Singareni Collieries issued land acquisition proceedings and acquired the lands and passed an award to a total amount of Rs.1,18,00,000/-.
4. Petitioner further averred that his grand father having two sons and two daughters and he is the son of the 6th respondent viz., Mutyam Ravinder Goud, and that himself and his father are living separately.
5. Petitioner further alleged that his aunt, uncle along with his father in active collusion, have filed O.S.No.10 of 2019 on the file of the V Additional District Judge at Godavarikhani seeking partition of the suit amount and also filed an application to refer the matter for settlement before Lok Adalat.
6. Petitioner further averred that his family members colluded and obtained a compromise decree without making him as a party to the suit before the 2nd respondent and an award was passed on 18-11-2019 apportioning the amount.
7. Petitioner further alleged that the impugned compromise decree was obtained by playing fraud and the same cannot be enforced. Assailing the same, he approached this Court by way of present Writ Petition.
8. This Court vide interim orders dated 21-04-2020 suspended the operation of the impugned order.
9. Pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court, I.A.No.1 of 2021 was filed by the 6th respondent seeking vacation of the interim orders disputing their relation of son and father.
10. It was averred in the vacate petition by the 6th respondent that the petitioner has a liability to prove his relationship with the vacate petitioner during pendency of the civil dispute as it is flatly denied by him that he is not having any right or title and interest in any share of his properties pursuant to the award passed by the Lok Adalat regarding payment of compensation since he not being interested party.
11. It was further averred by the 6th respondent/vacate petitioner that if at all the petitioner is interested to challenge the award claiming any right, title and interest in the said allotment of share, it is open for him to knock the doors of the competent Civil Court and seek declaration by proving that he is also the member of the family of 6th respondent and have subsisting interest in the properties and seek appropriate relief which he is entitled for a share in the compensation of his independent right by way of leading evidence. But the vacate petitioner contended that instead of doing that, the petitioner had approached this Court having no right whatsoever.
12. Counter-affidavit filed by the respondent Nos.5 and 10 is taken on record.
13. By the counter-affidavit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 5th respondent specifically contends that the petitio
