THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.3651 of 2003 Dated:25.11.2010 Between: Ganta Venkat Rao, And others. ….Petitioners And The Presiding Officer, Lok Adalat, Razole, East Godavari District, And another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.3651 of 2003 ORDER: The first petitioner is the father, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are sons. The second respondent filed a suit, being O.S.No.81 of 1997, on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Razole, East Godavari District, for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 09.06.1992. The agreed sale consideration was Rs.80,000/-, and as per the plaint averments an amount of Rs.60,000/-was paid as advance and the balance of Rs.20,000/- was paid at the time of registration. During the trial, the matter stood referred to the Lok Adalat, Razole. An award was passed under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (the Act), on 03.02.2001, purportedly, recording compromise between the parties. In this writ petition, the award is assailed, inter alia, on the ground that there was no compromise memo filed by the petitioners and the second respondent, and that when the total sale consideration is Rs.80,000/- the amount payable by the defendants to the plaintiff in the event of failure to register the sale deed was fixed at Rs.1,60,000/-. According to the petitioners, these two would render the impugned award illegal. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that the parties to the suit signed the memorandum of compromise, that the first petitioner signed for himself and his minor son, the third petitioner, and the second petitioner, who is a major, signed for himself, and that based on the same, the Lok Adalat passed award. A copy of the compromise memo is placed before this Court. This Court heard the Counsel for the rival parties and perused the material on record. The Xerox copy of the compromise memo filed before the Court of Senior Civil Judge would belie the petition allegations. Further, therein it is mentioned that the defendants were given option to pay Rs.1,60,000/- in which event the plaintiff was required to give up the claim for specific performance of agreement of sale. This also does not book any criticism as is made by the petitioners. In a recent judgment of this Court in Sanjay Kumar v Secretary, City Civil Court Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad[1] this Court considered the scope of judicial review of award passed by the Lok Adalat under the Act. After referring to State of Punjab v Ganpat Raj[2] and State of Punjab v Jalour Singh[3], it was held therein as under. From the above judgments, it may be taken as well settled that the award of Lok Adalat is administrative act of incorporating the terms of compromise or settlement agreed by the parties in the presence of Lok Adalat and Lok Adalat does not sit in adjudication of the dispute. When an award is passed in terms of the settlement arrived between the parties, which is duly signed by the parties annexed to the award of Lok Adalat, it becomes binding on the parties to the settlement and becomes executable as if it is a decree of Civil Court. No appeal would lie against the award of Lok Adalat and if any party wants to challenge such an award, it can be by way of petition under Article 226 or 227 of Constitution. If there is no compromise or settlement between the parties before the Lok Adalat, it cannot pass any award nor such award can bind the parties. The challenge to the award of Lok Adalat under Article 226 of Constitution can be entertained on very limited grounds raised only by parties to the settlement/compromise before Lok Adalat and not by anyone else. Thus to a limited extent judicial review is available to test the validity of awards passed by Lok Adalat. One such ground is when a party alleges that there is no settlement to pass an award. If it is shown that there is no settlement or compromise or that settlement or compromise itself is vitiated by fraud or misrepresentation, it would be a fit case for interference. Except the remedy of challenging the Lok Adalat award on limited grounds, no other authority or Court can question the award of Lok Adalat which shall be treated as final and binding. In this case, the grievance of the petitioners is the alleged non-compliance with this Court’s orders in earlier writ petition. Therefore, we need not burden this Judgment with various allegations made by petitioners or their mother or grandmother in the earlier proceedings with regard to alleged fraudulent acts on the part of the purchasers of the property. Indeed, it is not within the scope of the writ petition. In the result, for the above reasons, the writ petition fails, and is accordingly dismissed with costs. __________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 25.11.2010 vs [1] 2010 (3) ALT 289 (DB) [2] (2006) 8 SCC 364 [3] (2008) 3 SCC 660