2024:BHC-AUG:1859 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition No. 7595 / 2020 With Civil Application No. 11482 / 2023 in Writ Petition No. 7595 / 2020 Chandpasha s/o Amirsab Ansari, Age : 62 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o Uti (Bu.), Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur. ...Petitioner Versus

1. Ejaz s/o Amirsab Ansari, Age : 42 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o Uti (Bu.), Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur. 2. Amatulabi w/o Amirsab Ansari, Age : 70 years, Occupation : Household, R/o Uti (Bu.), Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur.

3. Amirsab s/o Chandsaab Ansari (deceased)

Through L.Rs.

i. Chandpasha s/o Amirsab Ansari (Petitioner herein) ii. Ejaz s/o Amirsab Ansari (Respondent No.1 herein)

iii. Surajpasha Amirsab Ansari, Age : 50 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o Uti (Bu.), Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur.

iv. Sultana Jabbar Pathan, Age : 48 years, Occupation : Household, R/o Ambejigai Rd, Near Chandtara Masjid, Latur.

v. Rizwana Salim Sheikh, Age : 46 years, Occupation : Household, R/o Mangrul, Tq. Kalamb, Dist. Osmanabad.

vi. Mumtaz Raifoddin Syed, Age : 44 years, Occupation : Household, R/o Uti (Bu.), Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur.

vii. Channa Ejaz Pathan, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Household, R/o M.H.A.D.A. Colony, Babhal Gaon Rd, Latur.

viii. Rubina Pirpasha Sheikh, Age : 38 years, Occupation : Household, R/o Bhada, Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur.

ix. Irfana Jafar Patel, Age : 35 years, Occupation : Household, R/o Nanad Jau, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur.

(L.Rs. iii to ix formal parties). ...Respondents _ _ _

Mrs. Anjali Dube (Bajpai), Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. R.P. Adgaonkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

_ _ _

CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

nd RESERVED ON : 22 JANUARY 2024.

th PRONOUNCED ON : 29 JANUARY 2024.

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 a