SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Telangana) 1475

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, JJ.
Bathina Naveena - Appellant
Vs.
The Honourable Lok Adalat - Respondent
Writ Petition No.35246 of 2025
Decided On : 27-11-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Kaluvala Venkata Vara Prasad
For the Respondent: Shashi Kiran Pusluri SC For Tslsa

Lok Adalat awards are final and binding unless substantial proof of fraud or misrepresentation is provided within a reasonable timeframe by the petitioning party.

Headnote:(A) Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - Sections 19(5)(i), 20(4), and 21 - Writ Petition challenging an Award of Lok Adalat on grounds of fraud and misrepresentation - Petitioners failed to provide substantive evidence supporting claims, and challenged the award after a significant delay - Lok Adalat awards are final unless clear evidence of impropriety is shown. (Paras 12, 13, 14, 17)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the Award of Lok Adalat, asserting that their legal counsel colluded with opponents, misleading them into an unjust compromise regarding inherited agricultural land. The original parties agreed to the award but alleged subsequent fraud. (Paras 1-6)

Findings of Court:
The Court found the petitioners' claims of fraud and misrepresentation to be unsubstantiated, emphasizing that they failed to provide timely evidence supporting their allegations, therefore upholding the Award. (Paras 9, 10, 17)

Issues: The central issues included the validity of the Award from the Lok Adalat, the jurisdiction concerning minors, and whether fraud had been committed in procuring the Award. (Paras 6, 14)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the award of a Lok Adalat, being a final settlement, is valid unless proven otherwise by concrete evidence within a reasonable time frame, noting that mere hearsay and vague allegations are insufficient. (Paras 12, 17)

Result: The Writ Petition is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. historical ownership and fraud allegations. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. arguments regarding the legality of the lok adalat award. (Para 6 , 7)
3. court's analysis on fraud claims and delay. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. legal framework governing lok adalat jurisdiction. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
5. requirements for challenging a lok adalat award. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
6. court's decision on the writ petition. (Para 18)
7. dismissal of the writ petition with no costs. (Para 19 , 20)

ORDER:

(per Hon’ble Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar

1. Heard Sri Kaluvala Venkata Vara Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Shashi Kiran Pusluri, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

2. The present Writ Petition is filed assailing the Award dated 16.04.2015 passed by the Lok Adalat, Zaheerabad, in Lok Adalat No.223/2025 in O.S.No.120 of 2014, as illegal, arbitrary, null and void and consequently, to set aside the same.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of this Writ Petition are that Smt. Bathini Rachamma, the grandmother of the 1st petitioner, was the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land bearing Sy.No.297/A, admeasuring Acs.3.31 guntas, situated at Bilalpur Village, Koheer Mandal, Sangareddy District (then Medak District). Smt. Bathini Rachamma died intestate in the year 2000, leaving behind four sons, namely late B. Vittal – the father of the 1st petitioner – and respondent Nos.4 to 6. The father of the 1st petitioner died in the year 2003, leaving behind the 1st petitioner, the 2nd petitioner (mother of 1st petitioner) and a younger son as legal heirs. It is further stated that after the death of Smt. Bathini Rachamma and the death of B. Vittal, respondent Nos.4 to 6, with malicious and fraudulent intent to appropriate the agricultural land falling to the share of B. Vittal, colluded with one another and managed to mutate their names in the revenue records for the year 2005–2006 without the knowledge or notice of the petitioners.

4. It is further stated that in the year 2014, on enquiry, when 2nd petitioner came to know through their well-wishers that respondent No.4 to 6 are trying to sell away their share of property, the petitioners filed a partition suit, vide O.S.No.120 of 2014 before the Junior Civil Judge at Zaheerabad on 29.12.2014 claiming for partition and separate possession in respect of the land in Sy.No.297/A admeasuring Acs.3.31 guntas situated at Bilalpur Village. That on the advice of the counsel, they had filed a Memo dated 16.04.2015 praying to refer the matter to Lok Adalat, as the parties to the suit have compromised and the learned trial Court passed an order on 16.04.2015 referring the case to Lok Adalat. That the counsel of the petitioners had taken some signatures on blank white papers and 1st petitioner’s paternal uncles have agreed to give 1/4th share i.e. Ac.0.37 guntas in the name of 2nd petitioner.

5. It is further contended that, later it came to know that the petitioners’ lawyer was colluded with respondent Nos.4 to 6 and gained huge amount by playing fraud on 2nd petitioner and that immediate thereto, the 1st petitioner along with 2nd petitioner and other community elders approached the office of the counsel by name Sri M.Pandu Ranga Reddy on 19.10.2025 requesting to furnish information regarding the fraud played by him and then the said Advocate threatened the petitioners and their family members with dire consequences of implicating them in criminal cases.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned Award dated 16.04.2015 passed by the 1st respondent is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and is liable to be quashed / set aside for the reasons of misrepresentation and the Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to record the compromise without verifying the voluntariness of all the parties in their presence and without obtaining signatures of all the parties in the suit. That the compromise that was recorded on behalf of 1st petitioner’s brother, who was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top