Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 1916
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J
CHANDPASHA AMIRSAB ANSARI – Appellant
Versus
EJAZ AMIRSAB ANSARI AND ORS – Respondent
CA/11482/2023
Mrs. Anjali Dube (Bajpai), Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. R.P. Adgaonkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
A third party lacking party status in Lok Adalat proceedings cannot directly challenge the award; remedies lie in filing a separate suit for declaration or amending existing suits.
Headnote:(A) Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 21(2) - Civil Procedure Code - Order 1, Rule 8(1)(b) and Order 23, Rule 3(b)(2) - Challenge to award of Lok Adalat - Petitioner, a third party, claims right of inheritance and alleges fraud in the award process - Court finds that the petitioner was not a party to the original suit and thus lacks standing to challenge the award directly - The award is deemed final and binding under Section 21(2) of the Act, and the petitioner has the option to file a separate suit for redressal. (Paras 9, 10, 18, 21)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The court emphasizes that disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction and that the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to either amend the existing suit or file a new suit. (Paras 18, 21)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a step-brother of the respondent, challenges an award from the National Lok Adalat regarding a land dispute, claiming he was not included in the original proceedings and alleging fraud.
Findings of Court:
The court finds that the petitioner was not a party to the original suit and thus cannot challenge the award directly; he may seek remedy through a separate suit.
Issues: The main issues include the petitioner's standing to challenge the award and whether the award was obtained through fraud.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the award of the Lok Adalat is final and binding on parties to the dispute, and a third party must seek remedy through a separate suit rather than a writ petition.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties. Heard the learned Counsel for the litigating sides finally.
2. The petitioner is challenging an award dated 17.03.2019 passed by the National Lok Adalat, Ausa in RCS No.174/2019. The petitioner is a step-brother of the respondent no.1 and step son of the respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 is the wife of respondent no.3. The respondent no.1 had filed RCS No.174/2019 for perpetual injunction against respondent no.2 and 3. The petitioner was not party to the litigation. The respondent no.3 was the owner of suit land which was gifted by him to respondent no.1 by oral Heeba. The possession of the respondent no.1 was stated to be obstructed which was cause to file suit.
3. There was settlement amongst respondent nos. 1 to 3. Respondent no.2 secured power of attorney of the respondent no.3. She entered into compromise on behalf of herself and the respondent no.3 with the respondent no.1 on 17.03.2019. The compromise was recorded and an award was passed on 17.03.2019 by the panel of National Lok Adalat, Ausa.
4. The petitioner’s case is that respondent no.3 was not the exclusive owner of the suit land. He is son begotten from deceased wife of respondent no.3. He had interest in the suit land. From the record of right, he noticed the award passed by the National Lok Adalat. The respondent no.1 had no right to gift suit land to the respondent no.1 and to part the possession. Feeling aggrieved by the decree drawn in pursuance of the award passed by the National Lok Adalat, the petition is preferred on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the award passed by the National Lok Adalat on 17.03.2019 is vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation. The petitioner has a right of inheritance and he was necessary party. The respondents suppressed material facts and obtained impugned award on the same date. The impugned award is passed in very casual manner and mechanically which has resulted into miscarriage of justice. Learned Counsel Smt. Dube submits that the mandatory procedure contemplated by the Order 1, Rule 8(1)(b) and Order 23, Rule 3(b)(2) have not been followed. Without seeking permission of the Court, the respondent no.2 acted on behalf of respondent no.3 by tendering power of attorney. The impugned award is void. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no alternate remedy of filing suit challenging the judgment and award passed by the Lok Adalat. Neither can she challenge the award passed by the National Lok Adalat by preferring any appeal in view of Section 21(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 .
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to rely upon the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of Hyderabad High Court in the matter of P. Naresh Kumar Vs. Secretary Legal Services Authority and Others in Writ Petition No. 1932/2020 ; judgment passed in the matter of Dinkar Indrabhan Kadaskar and Others Vs. Grampanchayat Bhagwatipur and Others , 2009(1) Bom.C.R. 39 .
7. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents supports impugned award passed by the Lok Adalat. He has raised objection for the maintainability of the petition by relying upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the matter of Batchu Subba Lakshmi and Others Vs. Sannidhi Srinivasulu and Others . He would submit that the writ petition is not maintainable because the petitioner is a third person and he was not party to the litigation. The petitioner has remedy of preferring independent suit challenging award passed by the National Lok Adalat on the ground of fraud, misrepresentation or violation of statutory procedures.
8. Learned Counsel for the respondent has invited my attention to the plaint in RCS No.101/2022 instituted by the petitioner against the respondents and others for partition, possession and declaration. The compromise deed filed in RCS No.174/2019 is sought to be ch
