HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZUL PURKAR W.P.No. 13148 OF 2009 Date: 08.09.2009 Between: M/s Dhanalakshmi Service Station, Vuyyuru. ………. Petitioner and The Lok Adalath/Hon’ble Junior Civil Judge, Gannavaram, Krishna District & others …….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZUL PURKAR W.P.No. 13148 OF 2009 O R D E R: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzul Purkar) The petitioner questions the compromise award, dated 10.04.2007 passed in O.S.No. 75 of 2006 on the file of the Lok Adalath, Gannavaram, Krishna District and consequently, he prays to set aside all further proceedings in E.P. No. 33 of 2008 pending before the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Gannavaram, Krishna District. The petitioner is said to be carrying on a business in petrol service station. Respondents No. 2 and 3 herein are the landlords. The petitioner filed O.S. No. 75 of 2006 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Gannavaram, for a decree of permanent injunction restraining Respondents No. 2 and 3 from interfering with the possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule site i.e. the land admeasuring 1111 square yards situated in R.S. No. 164/1, bearing Assessment No. 2733 of Vuyyuru Village, Vuyyuru Sub-Registrar Office, Krishna District. It is the petitioner’s case that the said land was leased out to it on 06.12.1961 and subsequently, a petrol service station has been established therein, after obtaining appropriate licences. When the petitioner moved an Application for interim injunction, i.e. I.A.No. 221 of 2006, by an order, dated 28.03.2006, the learned Junior Civil Judge granted ad interim injunction against Respondents No. 2 and 3. While the said suit was pending, a compromise was arrived at between the petitioner and Respondents No. 2 and 3 and for that purpose, the suit was referred to Lok Adalath, which passed a compromise award on 10.04.2007, inter alia, on the following terms: 1) That Respondent No.2 herein agreed to sell an extent of Ac.0.12 cents equivalent to 583 square yards of site in R.S.No.143/4 of Vuyyuru Village near the bypass road to facilitate the petitioner to shift the existing petrol bunk to the said alternative place; and 2) That the petitioner has agreed to vacate the petrol bunk and deliver the vacant possession to Respondents No.2 and 3 by 10.04.2008. Based on the aforesaid compromise, Respondents No. 2 and 3 admittedly executed a registered sale deed dated 10.04.2007 in favour of the wife of the petitioner with respect to the said Ac.0.12 cents of land in R.S.No. 143/4. Thereafter, since the petitioner did not vacate the premises, as per the terms of the compromise, Respondents No. 2 and 3 filed E.P.No. 33 of 2008 before the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, seeking execution of the award of the Lok Adalath. In the said E.P., the petitioner herein filed a counter and filed an Application under Section 151 C.P.C. seeking extension of time by six months for necessary permission and completing the formalities of Indian Oil Corporation. On the said Application, the executing Court passed an order dated 16.06.2009 holding that the petitioner is not entitled to extension of time and dismissed the said Application. As against the same, the petitioner filed C.R.P. No. 2727 of 2009 before this Court and by a final order of this Court dated 03.07.2009, the said C.R.P. was disposed of in the light of the mutual agreement between the parties. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the order of this Court in the aforesaid C.R.P. is relevant and is extracted hereunder: 4. Now, in fact, the question is not before this Court as to whether the execution proceedings are valid or otherwise, particularly in view of the fact that both the parties are agreeable to the condition that the petitioner-plaintiff (Judgment debtor) would vacate the suit schedule land within 2 (two) weeks from today. 5. Therefore, in view of the mutual agreement to vacate the suit schedule premises within the period stipulated, the Civil Revision Petition is closed, at the stage of admission. While the matter stood thus, the present Writ Petition was filed on 01.07.2009, questioning the award primarily on the ground that the alternative land, relating to which Respondents No. 2 and 3 had executed the sale deed, was, in fact, covered by a notification of the National Highways Authority for acquisition of the said land and as such, the said land is not available, and Respondents No. 2 and 3 have fraudulently entered into a compromise and executed the sale deed by suppressing the fact that the aforesaid land is subject matter of acquisition. We have heard learned counsel appearing on either side. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the fact of existence of the notification relating to the aforesaid land was within the knowledge of Respondents No. 2 and 3 who, in spite of that, by suppressing the same, have entered into compromise and now forcing the petitioner to vacate the present land. The very award itself having been based on the fraud played by Respondents No.2 and 3, the petitioner has no other remedy but to question the said award in this Writ Petition. Leaned counsel for the contesting Respondents No. 2 and 3 submits that there is no question of fraud being played and the compromise was entered into after duly negotiating all the terms and conditions. Respondents No.2 and 3 also deny that the said land is covered by any notification and according to Respondents No. 2 and 3, the land, which is subject matter of acquisition and notification, was different from Ac.0.12 cents sold by Respondents No. 2 and 3 in favour of the petitioner. The learned counsel for Respondents No.2 and 3 submits that the petitioner, having lost in the C.R.P., is agitating the award in these proceedings, which is impermissible. We have considered the aforesaid submissions. We are of the opinion that the petitioner has entered into a compromise, based on which the Lok Adalath had passed the Award. Even thereafter, the petitioner has specifically sought extension of time by six months by filing E.A. No. 126 of 2009 before the Executing Court. This, by itself, presupposes that the petitioner has accepted the award and wanted extension of time for shifting the petrol bunk from the present premises to the new premises. Even apart from this, in the Revision Petition, this Court has recorded mutual agreement between the parties, whereby time was further extended by two weeks. The said mutual agreement is not only recorded in the order of this Court, but further records that the validity or otherwise of the execution proceedings is not in question in the said C.R.P. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner having not questioned the validity or otherwise of the Execution Proceedings and having voluntarily agreed to abide by the said order, but only having sought extension of time, is not entitled to turn round and question the very Award in these proceedings. The contentions of the petitioner, therefore, cannot be accepted, as they would be contrary to the principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata. The Writ Petition, therefore, is thoroughly misconceived and is an attempt to get over the orders of this Court in C.R.P. No. 2727 of 2009. The Writ Petition is therefore, liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the interim orders granted by this Court shall stand vacated. ------------------------- (V. ESWARAIAH, J) ----------------------------------- (VILAS V. AFZUL PURKAR,J) 8th September 2009 ksld