WP/37519/2022 of Gaddagunti Rajapathi and 2 others Vs .State of Telangana and 6 others on 29 December 2022

1. Gaddagunti Rajapathi, s/o Late Laxmaiah, Aged about 62 yearsOcc:President, Sri Sai Ram Colony Welfare Association,R/o 16-2-7521K1113,Sri Sai Ram Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad-S00 059Occ:President, Sri Sai Ram Colony Welfare Association,R/o 16-2-7521K1113,Sri Sai Ram Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad-S00 059

2. Gaddagunti Ramanakar Mudiraj, S/o Late G. Eshwariah ltzludiraj, Aged about37 years, Occ: Vice-President, Sri Sai Ram Colony Welfare Association,Rlo 16-2-7 51 193/D/6, Sri Sai Ram Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad-SOO 05937 years, Occ: Vice-President, Sri Sai Ram Colony Welfare Association,Rlo 16-2-7 51 193/D/6, Sri Sai Ram Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad-SOO 0593. Kallem Madhava Reddy, Sro Late Narasimha Reddy Aged about. 51 years.Occ. General Secretary, Sri Sai Ram Colony Welfare Association,Rlo. 16-2-7 51193/F/L Sairam Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad - 500059Occ. General Secretary, Sri Sai Ram Colony Welfare Association,Rlo. 16-2-7 51193/F/L Sairam Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad - 500059

...PETITIONERS

AND

1. State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Law and Justice,Secretariat, Hyderabad.Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. Secretary, High Court Legal Services Commjtte, High Court of Telangana,Hyderabad.Hyderabad.

3. Joshi Sudhakar Sharma, S/o Joshi Krishna Bharr, Aged about 44 [years,]Occ: Pujari, Resident of House bearing Municipal No. 16-1 1-580/1 , HanumanTemple, Gaddiannaram, Hyderabad.Occ: Pujari, Resident of House bearing Municipal No. 16-1 1-580/1 , HanumanTemple, Gaddiannaram, Hyderabad.

4. G.Darshan, S/o G.Jangaiah, Aged about 65 years, Occ. Private Employee,R/o H. No.16-2-751/93/A, Sairam Colony, Saidabad, HyderabadR/o H. No.16-2-751/93/A, Sairam Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad

5. Smt.V.Shashirekha, D/o G.t-,arshan,Wo V.Srinivas, Aged about 35 [years,]Occ:Housewife, R o H.No. 16-2-7511931A, Flat No.302, 3rd Floor, Sai RamColony, Saidabad, HyderabadOcc:Housewife, R o H.No. 16-2-7511931A, Flat No.302, 3rd Floor, Sai RamColony, Saidabad, Hyderabad

6. G.Raghupathi, S/o Late Jangaiah, Aged about 55 [years, ]Occ. Business,Resident of 13-11-141/2, Sahiti Nagar, Gaddiannaram, Saroornagar,Ranga Reddy DistrictResident of 13-11-141/2, Sahiti Nagar, Gaddiannaram, Saroornagar,Ranga Reddy District Ranga Reddy District7 G.V\ay @ Vijay Kumar, S/o Late G.Jangaiah, Resjdent of 16-2-75211161D,Sairam Colony, Beside SBH Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad.Sairam Colony, Beside SBH Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Attic'e 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may bepleased to issue Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature ofWrit of Mandamus declaring the Lok Adalat award dated 25-10-19, passed inS.A. No. 93 of 2016, on the file of the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana atHyderabad, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutionai, against the Principles of NaturalJustice, violation of Art.300-A of the Constitution of lndia, and contrary topurpose of the enactment of the Legal Services Authority Act 1987 andconsequently set aside the Lok Adalat award dated 25-10-2019, passed in S.A.No. 93 of 2016 on the file of Hon'ble High Court for the State of TelanganalA NO: 1 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased tostay of all further proceedings of Lok Adalat award dated 25-10-2019 passed inS.A No 93 of 2016 on the file of the Hon'ble High Court, at Hyderabad pendingdisposal of the main Writ Petition IANO: 2 OF 2022

Ile tl'c cn:

l. G. Darslnn Si r late G. Jangirh, '--Aged about [(r5 ]years Occ: PrivateRro H.NO. 16-?.-7 -;I193/A, Sairan CtrSaidabad, I 11'dr:rabad.Aged about [(r5 ]years Occ: PrivateRro H.NO. 16-?.-7 -;I193/A, Sairan CtrSaidabad, I 11'dr:rabad.

2. Smt. V. Shashirekha D/o G. Darshan.!:W/o V. Srinivas. Agecl abor.rt 35 -r,earsIVo H.NO. 16-2-'15|lL)]IA.Irlat No. 33'd, Floor, iiiririLni Colon1,. Sridirbarl,W/o V. Srinivas. Agecl abor.rt 35 -r,earsIVo H.NO. 16-2-'15|lL)]IA.Irlat No. 33'd, Floor, iiiririLni Colon1,. Sridirbarl, kt' a :Petitioners.Responclenls NO. [,l ].,i -:.

.r

.1,

.ANrt

l. G;rdcii.qrutii i,lriiiir.,titiii S/o lirte Larnriah, .-'Alr.cii rbirr,ri [(il ]Pre::idcrrt,:lSri,)'r:rrs Oci:: Alr.cii rbirr,ri [(il ]Pre::idcrrt,:lSri,)'r:rrs Oci:: Sri iilrn Ci, l,,',r),, \\/ellarc A ssocirtior.r,IUo H.NO. 16-)--.iS2lKl1l3, Sri Sri l{am Colony,Saidabad Ilvdelabad - 500 0-59.IUo H.NO. 16-)--.iS2lKl1l3, Sri Sri l{am Colony,Saidabad Ilvdelabad - 500 0-59.

2. Garkiagunri l(anranrkrLr lvIrrrlinLj iiir late G. Eiirvariah Mudff,\r'r'l;L[.(,t:r [l7 ]\('j:.; O(c: [\,'itc ]Prr:ident,-liri Sni llani Colonl,,Wellarc Association, [L]IVo Il.NO. | 6-)-7 51193/D;6, Sri Sai Ram Colony;Saidrbad, llyticlabad - -5C0 059.,\r'r'l;L[.(,t:r [l7 ]\('j:.; O(c: [\,'itc ]Prr:ident,-liri Sni llani Colonl,,Wellarc Association, [L]IVo Il.NO. | 6-)-7 51193/D;6, Sri Sai Ram Colony;Saidrbad, llyticlabad - -5C0 059.

.3. Kallem Moilir:rva lLeddv Occ: Ccneral Secretary.Sri Sai Ram Coionv Welfare Association, /-IVb H.NO. | 6-2-15v93ll.tL, Srl Ram colonv.--'Sri Sai Ram Coionv Welfare Association, /-IVb H.NO. | 6-2-15v93ll.tL, Srl Ram colonv.--'Saidabad ilyderabrd - 5OOO59. Respondents./Petit iolrels No. I r() l.

4. State of1'elangrna, rep. by its Pr-incipal Secretalk-Larv and -h.t-,rticr, Secretariat, Ll1'derabad.Larv and -h.t-,rticr, Secretariat, Ll1'derabad.

,'-,,

I

j

I

.,..tI : ..1 .rt, .t . [, ].l.r,rirj i t rrrrilI :l L, '.1i :'.. . r... ll ..:i:i [\, ].' . ,,- [.i.,rr-'irll.],\!..' iLirollt :,5 [i,:,Lts ][t-;r'r;: ][ilrrsiness. ][---]ll ,, II.l.li). l.l ll-lii1l. ii:rlriti i.lagcr. [(iailriiarrtrr ]t'.rirt, , ),..:.,:.t.1' .r::r.l I li, i-tiiiliclr I , ;. rr_, .ri \ rjlL',' r,iri,lr S,to I:tre (i. .llLllg:tltll,.I, I'.r) li-.1-'rrr,l ll,/l [). ]Sli|at.r [( ][olonr],i [j,: ]t'liil I [( ],,1.'n,. i.lll,.l;rlrad H1,rlL'r'rbrLd.ii:::;trt nii: Lt:-<liL's I [) ][r. ][) ][r ]r\ lc ir I:i lr,(1. i i l- ir .i: [,']

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that [jn ]the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed irr support of the petition, the High Cou( may be pleased tovacate the ex- parte Stay order passed in l.^No. 112022 in W.P.NO. 3751912022daled. 2810912022

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. B. NARAIMHA SHARMA FOR SRl. V. RAMESH REDDYCounsel for the Respondents No.1: GP FOR LAW LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRSCounsel for the Respondents No.4&5: SRl. SYED KAREMUDDINCounsel forthe Respondents No.2: SRl. J. ANIL KUMAR, SCCounsel for the Respondents No.3 and 7: None AppearedCounsel for the Respondents NO.6 : PARTY lN PERSONThe Court made the following: O'iDER

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAOANDHONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

WRIT PETITION No. 375L9 OF 2022

ORDER : eet the Hon'ble Si JusLice J. Sreeniuas Rc.o )

The petitioners have flled this writ petition for seeking a Writ ofMandamus to de clare the Lok Adalat Award dated 25. i0.2O19 passed inS.A.No.93 of 2016 on the file of High Court for the State of Telangana,Hyderabad, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the enactment of the LegalServices Authority Act, 1987 and consequently to set aside theLok Adalat Award dated 25.10.2019 passed in S.A.No.93 of 2016 and topass such other suitable order as this Court may deem fit and proper inthe circumstances of lhe case.

2. Heard Sri B.Narsimha Sharma, learned counsel representing SriV.Ramesh Reddy learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri SyedKareemuddin learned counsel lor the respondents No.4 & 5 and J.AnilKumar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2.

9. The brief facts of the case are that the fathers.of petitioners [1 ]:and 2along with other family members have fiied suit in O.S.No.622 of [1981 on]the file of the Court of Vth Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabadfor seeking partition of the suit schedule [properties admeasuring ]to [an]extent of Acs.7.13 guntas in Survey [Nos.44, ][47, ][48,50, ][51, ]52,54 [to ][60]

:

'

WP No 37519 of20I\

situated at Said,rbad village, Il1,dg..bra, and lhe same was decreed on19.04.1983 alioc,lted the sharcs bctween the parties.

3.1. It is averrc,l that thc parties and their legal heirs in O.S.No.622 of1981 had convcrted thc land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.i.O0 insurvey Nos.48, 50, 54 to 60 situated at Saidabad Revenue village,Hyderabad into plots. For the said purpose, Kothapeta Co-operativeHousing Sociely Limited, bearing Regd.No.PB:830, Sankeshwar Bazar,Hyderabad was lormed and thc said society has allotted the plots infavour of the society members/ purchasers and executed registered saledeeds. Thercafter, thc plot ou,ners formed "Sri Sai Ram Colony WelfareAssociation" vide Registration No,468 of 20O0.

3.2. It is also stated that u'hile making the layout in the name ofKothapet Co-operative Housing Society Limited, the Plot No.112/Aadmeasuring to .rn extcnt of 133.77 sq. yards is earmarked for "Sri SaiRam Colony We llare AssociaLion (Community Hall), thereafter the saidWelfare Association has constructed compound wall and a room in thesaid plot and doing their daily activities. While the matter stood thus, therespondent No.4 executed a gift settlement deed in the - name of hisdaughter; i.e., respondent No.S herein vide document No.6689 /2021dated 24.09.202 1 styling himself as the owner of the house bearingNo.l6-2-751 l93lB I I I Al 1, as if the same is constructed in Plot No. i 12/A,which is earmarked for community hall. The said house number wasobtained by the respondent No.4 by playing fraud with the municipal authorities; moreover, in the gilt settlement deed it is mentioned that therespondent No.4 acquired the said property by virtue of the award passedin S.A.No.93 ol 2016, dated 25. 10.2019. ln fact, the said property isentirely different than the suit schedule property, as the respondents 3 to7 colluded with each other and created documents to grab the plotNo. 112/A, which is carmarked for the community hall.respondent No.4 acquired the said property by virtue of the award passedin S.A.No.93 ol 2016, dated 25. 10.2019. ln fact, the said property isentirely different than the suit schedule property, as the respondents 3 to7 colluded with each other and created documents to grab the plotNo. 112/A, which is carmarked for the community hall.

3.3. The petitioner further stated that the 3rd respondent has filedO.S.No. 1865 of 2Ol2 on the file of the Court of XIX Junior Civil Judge,City Civil Court, Hyderabad seeking perpetual injunction againstrespondents 4, 6 and 7 on the ground that he is the owner and possessorof property bearing No. 16-2-751/931A1211, admeasuring 120 sq. yards insurvey No.47 situated al Saidabad, Hyderabad, and the same was decreedon 21.05.201 3. Aggrieved by the same the defendants hled A.S.No.383 of2013 on the lile of the Court of XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City CivilCourt, Hyderabad. It appears that the same was allowed on 30.06.2015.Aggrieved there by the same, third respondent filed S.A.No.93 of 2016before this Court. S.A.No.93 of 2016 ended in compromise by the partiesby filing [joint ]compromise memo and the matter has been settled beforethe Lok Adalat, vide Award dated 25. 10.2O19.

4. Respondents 4 and 5 have filed counter contending that thepetitioners filed the present writ petition suppressing several facts\includin! filing of O.S.No.287 of 2022 on the lile of the Court of XVIIAdditional Senior Civil Judge, [City ][Civil ]Court, Hyderabad. In the said suit the petitioners sought declaration declaring the [gift ]settlement [deed ][vide]document No.6689 l2O2l, dated 24.O9.2021 as null and void, not bindingon them and recovery of possession, of suit schedule land admeasuring133.77 sq.yards bearing Plot No.l 12l A in Sy.No.48, 49, 59 admeasuring133.77 Sq.yds situated at Sariramngar Colony, Kothapet, CooperativeSociety Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad.

4.1. Respondenl No.4 further averrcd that he acquired the subject matterof the property irs an outcomc of partition vicie O.S.No.622 of ).987 andwhen dispute arose between him and the respondents 6 to 8 hereinhimself along u,ith the respondents 6 to 8 compromised during thependency of SA. No.93 of 2016 and thc matter $,as relerred to the HighCourt Legal Services Committee, rvhich has passed an award on25.10.2019 in terms of compromise effected between the parties. Hefurther stated that house bearing No.16-2 751 l93lB-l/A was transferredto respondent No.5 who is his daughtcr, through registered gift settlementdeed vide document No.6689 l2O2l, dated 24.09 .2021 . Thereafter, hisdaughter obtained construction permission from the GHMC vide permitNo.139997 /2O 19, dated 17.2.2022 and started construction. Then thepetitioners demanded to pay an amount of t 2,OO,O0O/- claiming that asthey are running welfare committee for which they have to pay thedemanded amount and when refused to meet the said demand, they filedthe present wrir l)etition //

I

I

I

I

I

I

5. The learned counsel for the p€titioners contended that therespondent No.3 filed zi simple suit for perpetual injunction videO.S.No.1861 ol 2Ol2 on the file of the Court of XIX Additional ChiefJudge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the respondents 4,6 and 7 inrespect of the property bearing No. l6-2-751/931A1211, admeasuring 120sq. yards and the said suit u,as decreed. During the pendency of theSecond Appeal No.93 of 2016, the respondents 3, 4, 6 and 7 have colludedwith each other and obtained the Lok Adalat award on 25. 10.2019covering more than the extent o[ land claimed in the suit as well asconverting the injunction suit into title suit and the same is contrary tolaw. After obtaining the Lok Adalat Award, the Respondent No.4 hasexecuted Gift Settlement Deed on 24.09 .2021 in favour of Stn respondentin respect of house bearing No. 16-2-751/93/BlI/All admeasuring 143sq.yards and under the guise of Gift Settlement Deed the Respondent No.Sis trying to make the constructions in the petitioners property. Admittedly,the said property belongs to the petitioners and the Lok Adalat Award isliable to be set aside.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 5contended that the petitioners have already filed the suit in O,S.No.287 of2022 on the hle of XVIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court,Hyderabad against the very same respondents seeking declaration,declaring the Gift Settlement Deed document No.6689 of 2021, dated24.O9.2021 executed by respondent No.4 in favour of respondent No.S asnull and void and not binding upon them and also sought decree directing\

-'-''

2ad!,

E

the defendants 1 and 2 therein to delivcr the vacant [possession ][of ][the suit]schedule propcrty i.e., Land bcaring l)lol [No. ]l12lA in Sy.Nos.48, [49, ][59]admeasuring 13,3.77 Sq.yds situated at Sairamngar Colony, [Kothapet,]Cooperative Society Colony, Saidabad, tlyderabad., and the said suit [is]pending. In vierv of the same, the petitioners are not entitled to any reliefmuch less the reliel sought in this writ pctition, as the petitionerssuppressed the factum of filing the above suit and tl-rey have notapproached with clean hands.

7. As per the pleadings ar-rd the contcntions of the rcspective parties inthe writ petition, it reveals that the petitioners arc claiming that they arethe President, Vice President and the General Secretary of Sri Sai RamColony Welfare Association and they are the owners of the propertyadmeasuring 133.77 square yards in plot No.112/A and they acquiredthrough unregist.ered gift deed (settlement) dated 20.O9.2000 executed bySri Rajapathi and six others in favour of "Sri Sai Ram Nagar WelfareAssociation", SBH colony, Saidabad and thc saicl property is in surveyNos.48, 49 and .59 bounded by, North: No.112lB of P.Mallaih, South:PlotNo.1 12, East: Plot No.1O0/A and West: 30 feet road.

8. Whereas the respondent No.3 has filed thc suit in O.S.No.1865 of2012 on the file of XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad,against respondents 4, 6 and 7 for grant of perpetual injunctionrestraining the defendants therein from interfering with peacefulpossession and enjoyment cf the suit property i.e., house PNR) & lSR,lWP No 37519 of2022WP No 37519 of2022

No.l6-2-751, 193/Al2l1 admcasuring 12O sq. yards in survey No.47. Thesaid suit was decreed on 2l .10.2013. Against the said decree, thedefendants therein filed appeal in A.S. No.383 of 2013 and the same wasallowed on 3O.O6.2015. Questioning the said judgment and decree, therespondent No.3 filed S.A.No.93 of 2016 before this Court. In the saidsecond appeal, the respondent No.3 and the respondents 4,6 and 7 haveIiled joint compromise memo on 11-09-2019 and the matter was referredto Lok Adalat and the Lok Adalat passed an Award on 25-i0-2019. In thesaid Award, it was held in para 11 tl-rat "the respondent No.3 is entitled to120 sq. yards shou.tn in yellow colour, and the respondent No.4 is entitledred colour portion, respondent I{o.6 is entitled blue colour portion".Thereafter, the respondent No.4 executed registered gift settlement deedvide Doc. No.69 19 of 2O2\ in favour of respondent No.S in respect of theproperty house bearing No. 16-2-751/93/B/1/A/1, admeasuring 143sq.yards equivalent to 119.56 sq.mts having plinth area of 30O sq.ft ofACC situated at Sairam Colony, SBLI colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad underGHMC limits. Questioning the gift settlement deed No.6919 oI 2021, dated24-9-2021 the petitioners have fi1ed suit in O.S. No. 287 of 2022 on thefile of the Court of XVII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court,Hyderabad, seeking declaration, to declare the above said gift settlementdeed as nult and void and not binding upon them and also sought therelief of directing the respondents 4 and 5 to deliver the vacant possessionof the suit schedule property i.e., Land bearing in Plot No. 1 12/A insaid suit was decreed on 2l .10.2013. Against the said decree, thedefendants therein filed appeal in A.S. No.383 of 2013 and the same wasallowed on 3O.O6.2015. Questioning the said judgment and decree, therespondent No.3 filed S.A.No.93 of 2016 before this Court. In the saidsecond appeal, the respondent No.3 and the respondents 4,6 and 7 haveIiled joint compromise memo on 11-09-2019 and the matter was referredto Lok Adalat and the Lok Adalat passed an Award on 25-i0-2019. In thesaid Award, it was held in para 11 tl-rat "the respondent No.3 is entitled to120 sq. yards shou.tn in yellow colour, and the respondent No.4 is entitledred colour portion, respondent I{o.6 is entitled blue colour portion".Thereafter, the respondent No.4 executed registered gift settlement deedvide Doc. No.69 19 of 2O2\ in favour of respondent No.S in respect of theproperty house bearing No. 16-2-751/93/B/1/A/1, admeasuring 143sq.yards equivalent to 119.56 sq.mts having plinth area of 30O sq.ft ofACC situated at Sairam Colony, SBLI colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad underGHMC limits. Questioning the gift settlement deed No.6919 oI 2021, dated24-9-2021 the petitioners have fi1ed suit in O.S. No. 287 of 2022 on thefile of the Court of XVII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court,Hyderabad, seeking declaration, to declare the above said gift settlementdeed as nult and void and not binding upon them and also sought therelief of directing the respondents 4 and 5 to deliver the vacant possessionof the suit schedule property i.e., Land bearing in Plot No. 1 12/A in -,.,., Sy.No.48, 49,59 admeasuring 133.77 Sq.yds situated at SariramnagarColony, Kothapet, Cooperative Society Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad.

9. ln the said suit, the petitioners made an averment that therespondent No.4 without having any manner of right executed the giftsettlement deed in favour of the respondent No.5 by relying on the LokAdalat Award passed in S.A.No.93 ol 2016 dated 25.09.20 19 and theproperty in the Lok Adalat Award and the property mentioned in the giftsettlement deed is totally different. The respondents 4 and 5 have colludedwith each other and created the documents in order to grab the suitschedule property.

10. Thc property claimed by pelitioner through thc gift settlement deeddated 2O.9.2OO0 and schedule of property mentioned in O.S.No.287 of2022 on the file of the Court of XVII Additionai Senior Civil Judge, CityCivil Court, Hyderabad, is one and the same. Whereas the propertymentioned in the gift settlement deed executed by the respondent No.4 infavour of the respondent No.S dated 24.Og.2021 pertaining to an extent of143 sq. yards in respect of the house bearing No.16-2-751/93lBl1lAl1.ln the said schedule of property, the respondent No.4 has not mentionedany survey number. However, the petitioners in the writ petition as well asin the suit in O.S.No.287 of 2022 are specifically claiming that under theguise of gift settlement deed dated 24.09.2021 executed by the respondentNo.4 in favour of respondent No.S, respondent No.5 is interfering in the i1

property of the petitioncrs which was acquired by them through giftsettlement deed dated 20.9.2000.settlement deed dated 20.9.2000.

11. Admittedly, the core issue in this writ petition in-as-much-asconfined to determine as to whether the petitioners are having anymanner of right to challenge or question thc Lok Adalat Award passed inSA.No.93 ol 2Ol9 albeit when the petitioners are not the parties to the lis.

12. As per the settled principle of law, any award passed by the LokAdalat is binding between the parties to the lis and not binding uponothers who are not the parties. But in the instant case, the petitioners areclaiming that by virtue of the Lok Adalat Award only the respondent No.4had executed gift settlement deed in favour of respondent No.5. Admittedlythe petitioners have already Iiled suit in O.S.No.287 of 2022 and the sameis pending. In the said plaint, the petitioners have made a mention aboutpassing of the Award by the Lok Adalat in S.A.No.93/2016, dt.25. 10.2019.The petitioners are seeking declaration declaring the Gift Settlement DeedDt.24.O9.2021 as null and void and also for delivery of possession of thesuit schedule property and the said suit is pending.

13. Seetiqn,19 of Legal Services Authority ACt, 1987 deals withorganization of I,ok Adalat. Sub-Section 5 is relevant to this case. It readsas under :

Section 9: "A Lok Adalat shall haue [jurisdiction ]todetermine and to arriue at compromise or setttementW!y,e.n [the ][parties ][to ][a ][dispute ][in ][respect ][of ][(i) ang]cas;e pending [before ]; or [(ii) ]any matter uthich is falting I

tuithin rhe [juisdiction ]and is not brought [before, ang]court for uthich the Lok Adalat is organized:Proo;ded that the Lok Adalat shall haue nojuisdicrion in respect of ang case or matter relating toan offer [t ]ce not compoundable under any lau."

74. From a bare reading of this provision makes it clear a Lok Adalatshall have [jurisdiction ]to determine and to arrive at compromisc orsetLle ment bclu,c'en the parties to a disputc in respect of a pending case.According to Scction i9 of the Act, the Lok Adalat can pass awardbounded by rhc reliefs claimed by the parties to thc lis and that the LokAdalat is not ha,.'ing power or [jurisdiction ]to pass au'ard beyond thc scopeof thc relief/s clriimed in the suit. The Lok Adalat has to confine the awardto the relief/s as sought by the parties to the lis.

15. As per tht settled principles of law, no court or tribunal can grantreliel to a partv more than what is prayed for. In the instant case, thethird respondenl filed simple suit in OS.No.1865 of 2Ol2 on the file of XIXJunior Civil ,Jr rdge, City Civil Court, . Hyderabad seeking perpetualinjunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering in respect ofthe house admeasuring 12O sq.yards bearing No. L6-2-75t/93lAl2ll insurvey No.47 only: [. ]Wherqas the pq{ies in the s4ii{ suit filed jointcompromise memo during the pendency of the SA.No.93 of 2O 16 inrespect of other than the property mentioned in the suit schedule propertyand basing on rhe joint compromise memo, the Lok Adalat passed theAward determining the rights over the properties of the parties more thanthe extent covercd in the suit schedule property.

-).-

I

1:l

i6. In view of the law laid down by this Court and the Apex Court, thisCourt finds that the Lok Adalat passed the award beyond the scope of therelief claimed in the suit. However, in view of the peculiar facts andcircumstances of the case, we are not inclined to set aside the awardpassed by the Lok Adalat on this ground. lt is made clcar that as thepetitioners are not parties in the Lok Adalat award, the same is notbinding on them and is binding between the parties only.

17. The petitioners have raised several disputed questions of iactswh rch cannot be gone into and adjudicated in the present writ petition.However, the petitioners are entitled to raise al1 the pleas which are raisedin the present writ petition including the applicabilitl, of the Lok AdalatAward in respect of their property in the pending O.S.No.287 of 2022. Thetrial court shall consider all pleas advanced by the parties.

18. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposcd o[. No costs. As a sequel,miscellaneous petitions if any, pending shall stand closed.

SD/.P. GOWRI SHANKA"

//rRUEcoPY// [AsslsrAIZHEGlsrRAR"]

SECTION OFFICER

One Faircopy,_to,thd Hon,bte SRt JUSTTCE p. NAVEEN RAO(For His Lordships Kind perusal)

One Fair Copy to the Hon,ble SRt JUSTTCE J. SREENTVAS RAO(For His Lordships Kind perusat)

To,

1The Principal Secretary, Law and Justice, Secretariat, Hyderabad.state ofTelangana,2The, Secretary. High Court Telangana,2The, Secretary. High Court Legal Services Committe, High Court ofI elangana, Hvderabad.3Tw_o CCs to GP FOR LAW LE.G]SLAT|VE AFFA|RS, Hioh Court for the StateofTelangana, at HyderabadlouTi- ['-' ][- ][i ][i"r\v! ][I rrvrr \]41 1 LR Copies.5Th-e Under Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law, Justice and CompanyAffairs, New Delhi.I elangana, Hvderabad.3Tw_o CCs to GP FOR LAW LE.G]SLAT|VE AFFA|RS, Hioh Court for the StateofTelangana, at HyderabadlouTi- ['-' ][- ][i ][i"r\v! ][I rrvrr \]41 1 LR Copies.5Th-e Under Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law, Justice and CompanyAffairs, New Delhi.

6. [-l ]he Secretary [-lelangana ]Advocates Assocaation Library. High CourtBuildings, Hyd:rabad.7.UNE LLtoSFI V RAI/IESH REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]8OneCCtoSFl. SYED KAREMUDDIN, Advocate [OPUC]9OnetoSFI ANIL KUIVAR(SC), Advocate [OPUC]10OneCCtoSRI, G.RAGHAPATHI PARTY IN PERSONAdvocate [OPUC]11TwoCDcopies BN4lls ?n"ou HIGH COURT

DATED:29112t2022

1t\[G ][STAr€]ORDERWP.No.37519 ot 2022a11 [JIN ][2[?3]L){",,,,tiLtCl\;; DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTSgtr'.\*