IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16211 of 2007 Between: Nallapati Pandu Ranga Rao S/o.Nagheshwar Rao R/o.Munagala village of Munagala Mandal Nalgonda District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Vempati Venkateshwar Rao S/o.Krishna Murthy R/o.Voila Singavaram village, of Nadigudem Mandal, Nalgonda District 2 Smt.Challa Vijaya W/o.Challa Lakshmaiah Bethoavolu village Chilukuru Mandal, Nalgonda District .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the award of the lok Adalat Suryapet,in LAC.No.586/2006 dated 4.11.2006 relating to suit OS.No.128/2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge`s Court, Suryapet, as null and void and violation of Article 300A of the Constitution of India and provisions of Section 20 r/w of 22 of Legal service Authorities Act 1987,and consequently set aside the award and grant such other relief or reliefs as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.NOUSHAD ALI Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY W.P.No.16211 of 2007 O R D E R:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the award dated 04.11.2006 passed in LAC No.586 of 2006 relating to suit O.S.No.128 of 2006 by the Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet, as null and void and violative of Article 300 A of the Constitution of India and provisions of Section 20 r/w 22 of Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 and consequently set aside the said award. 2. The facts stated are the petitioner is the registered general power of attorney holder of the suit property under registered document No.755 of 2003 dated 25.3.2003 stated to have been executed by the 2nd respondent after receiving full sale consideration and delivered possession of the suit property. It is alleged by the petitioner that thereafter the 1st respondent who is brother of 2nd respondent filed suit O.S.No.128 of 2006 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet against the 2nd respondent seeking a decree in his favour for specific performance of the alleged agreement of sale stated to have been executed by the 2nd respondent in favour of the 1st respondent in respect of the suit property. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents 1 and 2 being brother and sister colluded by playing fraud on the Court and got referred the said suit O.S.No.128 of 2006 to Lok Adalat. It is further stated that the 2nd respondent suppressed this fact before the Lok Adalat that she has already sold the suit property to the petitioner by receiving the entire sale consideration as long back as in the year 2003. It is stated that both the 1st and 2nd respondents compromised the suit O.S.No.128 of 2006 on the ground that the 2nd respondent has received the entire sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- and she would execute the sale deed in respect of suit property and accordingly, the 2nd respondent executed registered sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the 1st respondent on 21.1.2006 by playing fraud on the Court. It is also stated that the 2nd respondent under document No.864 of 2004 dated 24.3.2004 without notice to the petitioner cancelled the agreement of sale-cum-GPA dated 25.3.2003 executed by her in favour of the petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioner that pursuant to the registered agreement of sale-cum-GPA executed by the 2nd respondent on 25.3.2003, regular sale deed in his favour was registered on 20.3.2004. 3. Heard Sri Noushad Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nageswar Rao Palle, learned counsel for the 1st respondent. 4. Admittedly, the agreement of sale-cum-GPA executed in favour of the petitioner by the 2nd respondent in respect of the suit property is prior in time ie., 25.3.2003 and the sale deed pursuant to the compromise entered into by respondents 1 and 2 was executed on 21.11.2006 and the petitioner herein is not a party before the Lok Adalat proceedings and on that ground alone, the Lok Adalat award is liable to be set aside. The sale deed in favour of the petitioner was registered on 20.3.2004, whereas the registered agreement of sale-cum-GPA was allegedly cancelled by the 2nd respondent on 24.3.2004 and even otherwise the registration in favour of the petitioner in pursuance of registered agreement of sale-cum-GPA dated 25.3.2003, was during the subsistence of the said registered agreement of sale-cum-GPA. 5. In the circumstances, the impugned award dated 04.11.2006 passed in LAC No.586 of 2006 relating to O.S.No.128 of 2006 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial Court for consideration afresh on merits in accordance with law. The petitioner is impleaded in the suit O.S.No.128 of 2006 as a party defendant. It is needless to mention that any steps taken in pursuance of the award dated 04.11.2006 shall be null and void. The trial Court shall dispose of the suit O.S.No.128 of 2006 uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court in this order, but on its own merits, in accordance with law. 6. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ___________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J __________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY,J 19th March, 2008. PNV/NRG To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16211 of 2007 19th March, 2008