IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 19621 of 2008 Between: Mohd. Vialyath Ali S/o. Md.Yousuf Ali R/o. 14/A, Darshanapur, Gulbarga, Karnataka State. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The LOK ADALATH, Ranga Reddy District at Tandur-Cum-Munsiff Magistrate Court, at Thandur, R.R.district. 2 Mohd. Hameed S/o. Md. Inayath Ali 3 Mohd. Layaq Ali S/o. Md. Yousuf Ali, ( Both Are Residents of Shaipur village, Tandur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ) .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order or orde5rs or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus to call for the records concerning the Award passed in O.S.No.52 of 1998 dated 28-08-1998 by the respondent No.1 consequently declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, null and void and not binding on the petitioner and pass other order or further orders in the circumstances of the case and in the interests of the justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.LAKSHMI MANOHAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM) Heard the counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ch.Ravinder Babu, for the third respondent. The writ petition assails the order/award dated 28.8.1998 of the Lok Adalath, Rangareddy District, whereby and whereunder compromise is recorded and the terms of Memorandum of Compromise ﬁled by the parties before the Lok Adalath. The second and third respondent herein and the petitioner were defendants and plaintiﬀ respectively in O.S. No. 52 of 1998 on the ﬁle of the Junior Civil Judge, Tandur, Rangareddy District. The suit was referred to the Lok Adalath. The Lok Adalath recorded a Memorandum of Compromise on 28.8.1998. According to the petitioner, he is not a party either to the suit or to the Award of the Lok Adalath. The third respondent herein is his younger brother. The respondents 2 and 3 jointly purchased an extent of Ac.1.17 guntas in Sy. No.10, Saipur village, Tandur Municipality, Rangareddy District, under a registered document dated 2.7.1980. The second respondent alienated his share of land, admeasuring Ac.0.28 guntas in favour of the petitioner under an agreement of sale dated 22.5.1998 on receiving the entire sale consideration and handed over possession of the property to the petitioner. The second respondent, however, has not yet executed sale deed in petitioner’s favour. The petitioner alleges that in view of the abnormal increase in the value of urban property, including in Saipur village, the second and third respondent with a view to cause prejudice to the petitioner contrived the suit O. S. No. 52 of 1998 and therein contrived the compromise resulting in the award by the Lok Adalath. Consequent on the said Award, they are taking further steps to deprive the petitioner of his lawful enjoyment, possession and ownership of the property, which he purchased from the second respondent. Under the said circumstances, the petitioner seeks invalidation of the Award dated 28.8.1998 of the Lok Adalath, Rangareddy. The learned counsel for the petitioner admits that the petitioner is not a party either to O.S. No. 52 of 1998 nor the award dated 28.8.1998 of the Lok Adalath, Rangareddy. Since he is not a party either to the suit or the award, the award would not bind him. Under the circumstances, the award per se would not in any way prejudice any entitlement of the petitioner. The petitioner has a plenitude of remedies to assert and claim ownership, possession and enjoyment of the property in question. In view of the availability of alternative, eﬃcacious remedies including by way of appropriate civil proceedings before a court of competent jurisdiction, this court is not inclined to adjudicate upon the validity of the award at the petitioner’s instance. The writ petition is without merits and is accordingly dismissed with a liberty however accorded to the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedies in accordance with law. Nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression by this court on the merits of the petitioner’s claims or any competing claims of the respondents 2 and 3 in respect of the property in question. The appropriate forum or court shall adjudicate upon any such claim in accordance with the oral and documentary evidence marshalled thereat. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice Goda Raghuram _____________________ Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar November 4, 2008 Copy in a week MAS