IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI AND WMP NO. 9532 OF 2026,WMP NO. 9537 OF 2026 M. Raja ..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The Secretary Dist. Legal Services Authority, Chenglpattu district

2. the Head of the panel Addl. dist Munsif - Lok Adalat, O/o. Taluk Legal service committee, Dist.Munsif court building, Alandur, Chennai 16

3. The Principal District Munsif the Dist. Munsif Court Building, Alandur, Chennai 16

4. Santhanam @ Gowri

5. Rajalakshmi @ Amana

6. Vijayalakshmi @ Brinda

7. Jaya Prakash Thothadri ..Respondent(s)

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the collusive compromise final decree dated 11/2/2023 recorded on 11/2/2023 in Lok Adalat Case in OS No. 499/ 2021 on the file of Prl. Dist. Munsif Alandur, Chennai 16 and to quash the collusive compromise final decree dated 11/2/2023 and to pass For Petitioner(s): Mr.G. Headweige For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Murthi, Government Advocate for R1 to R3 Mr.C.Senthil Kumar for R4 to R6

Order

The writ petition is filed against the Compromise final decree dated

11.02.2023 in O.S.No.499/2021.

2. Case of the petitioner is that he is the permissive occupant of the suit schedule property for more than 29 years. Originally one Rangarajan, husband of the 1^st respondent purchased the property and at the request of his friend, he agreed the petitioner to take care of the suit property and the payment for his service as caretaker, was adjusted as rent. The respondents 4, 5 and 6 are the wife and children of the said Rangarajan. The said Rangarajan was died leaving behind the respondents 4 to 6 as his legal heirs to succeed to the suit property. After the death of Rangarajan, the respondents 4 to 6 wanted to put construction in the property and thereby disturbed the possession of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.191/2019 for permanent injunction and in counter, the respondents 4 to 6 also filed O.S.No.499 of 2021 before the District Munsif at Alandur. The respondents 4 to 6 had executed general Power with the

7^th respondent, who entered into memorandum of understanding with the petitioner, wherein he was called upon to withdraw his Suit in O.S.No.191/2019 on committed payment of Rs.15,00,000/-. Based on the contents of the Compromise Memo, the Court below had passed the decree.

3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Lok Adalat Award was fraudulently obtained through collusive compromise methods. Therefore, the said compromise final decree has to be quashed. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner made his signature in the Lok Adalat award, it was obtained by force, and hence the final decree is liable to be quashed.

5. Since no adverse order are passed against the respondents, notice to them is not necessary. This Court is inclined to dispose the matter based on available records.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner is not the owner of the property. He is only the permissive occupant. Thought he petitioner claimed that the respondents 4 to 6 had agreed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.50 lakhs, the said amount was not reflected in the joint memo of compromise. As per 22 E of the Legal Services Authorities Act, an award passed by the Lok Adalat is final and permanent, and the same cannot be modified unless fraud has been played upon the Court.

7. In the present case, the petitioner himself has stated that he is not the owner of the property and that he is only a permissive tenant. He also does not dispute the fact that he affixed his signature at the time the Lok Adalat award was passed. In view of the above, it is evident that the petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands and in order to extract money from the private respondents, he filed this writ petition. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in this