HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12130 OF 2005 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice P. Swaroop Reddy) This Writ Petition is filed by D. Pochaiah and Smt. G. Pochamma, who are defendant Nos.1 and 3 in O.S. No.836 of 2001 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar. 2. The writ petition is being filed questioning the award dated 19-11-2004 in O.S. No.836 of 2001 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. The award was passed by the Lok Adalat, Ranga Reddy District, which is respondent No.1 herein, under Section 21 of the A.P. Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as LSA “Act”). 3. According to the petitioners, respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed the suit O.S. No.836 of 2001 against them and respondent Nos.4 to 6 for perpetual injunction in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.4-27 guntas in Survey Nos.366, 367, 368/1, 390, 391, 392, 396, 397, 398 and 399 of Kapra village Municpality, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as disputed property). Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have no right, title or interest in the above disputed property and the same is joint property of the petitioners and respondent Nos.4 to 6 and other sharers. It was inam land and occupancy rights were granted in their favour. 4. The suit O.S. No.836 of 2001 was coming up for trial. One A. Jayaraj was the advocate in the suit on behalf of the petitioners and respondent Nos.4 to 6 herein. The litigation with regard to above land went to Revenue Courts and the High Court also and althrough they have been opposing respondent Nos.2 and 3. After appointment of Jayaraj as their counsel, they did not hear anything about the case. 5. Whileso on 13-12-2008, petitioners saw a crowd of around 100 people in the disputed property performing Bhoomi Pooja. Then to enquire about the matter, petitioners immediately approached their counsel Jayaraj and as he abused them in filthy language stating that the case was already compromised, they approached the Court and came to know that the matter was transferred to Lok Adalat and on enquiry they found that an award was passed on 19-11-2004 after accepting special vakalats dated 18-1-2004 allegedly signed on behalf of the petitioners. Petitioners obtained all the papers on the basis of which award was passed. Petitioner No.2 states that she never put her thumb impression on the special vakalat or on the compromise petition and also petitioner No.1. Though the compromise petition contains thumb impression of petitioner No.1 instead of his signature, petitioner No.1 and herself never put their thumb impressions on the compromise petition. Her (petitioner No.2) thumb impressions are forged by their advocate Jayaraju, who took their signatures on some blank papers at the time of signing of vakalat while presenting their case. Their advocate Jayaraju in collusion with respondent Nos.2 and 3 brought the compromise into existence to defeat the rights of the petitioners. As per the above compromise, an amount of Rs.25.00 lakhs was paid to the defendants and out of that amount an amount of Rs.9.00 lakhs was directly paid to them and a sum of Rs.16.00 lakhs was to be paid to one P. Jayarama Raju as per the specific instructions of all the defendants in the suit. But, the petitioners did not receive any amount. Petitioners and respondent Nos.4 to 6 never gave any instructions to pay Rs.16.00 lakhs to said Jayarama Raju. Cheques were never handedover to the petitioners or respondent Nos.4 to 6 and they have not realized any amount through them. The alleged compromise is fraud. 6. As per Sections 20(ii) and 20(2) of LSA Act, no case shall be referred to Lok Adalat by the Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In the present case, a memo was filed by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs on 18-11-2004 for reference to Lok Adalat and on the next day the matter was settled by the Lok Adalat withut giving any notice to the petitioners. Lok Adalat without verifying as to whether the petitioners and respondent Nos.4 to 6 have signed the compromise petition or not, compromised the matter and passed the award though they were not present before the Lok Adalat. The compromise petition ought not to have accepted vide special vakalat etc. Hence this writ petition. 7. Writ petitions is resisted by respondent Nos.2 and 3 contending that the disputed land containing several survey numbers belonging to several persons including petitioner No.1, husband of petitioner No.2 and respondent No.4. Petitioner No.1, husband of petitioner No.2 and respondent No.4 have a right to alienate the disputed property of Acs.4-27 guntas out of Acs.20-11 guntas. They entered into an agreement with one A. Ganesh and B. Ganesh by receiving sale consideration. A. Ganesh and B. Ganesh executed registered general power of attorney in respect of one B. Srinivas in respect of the disputed property of Acs.4-27 guntas vide document No.713/1993 dated 06-04-1993. On that basis, the agreement holders through G.P.A. holder B. Srinivas alienated the said disputed property to respondent Nos.2 and 3 under registered sale deed bearing document No.2461/95 and 2462/95 dated 19-10-1995. Thus, they became owners of the disputed property and since 1995 they are in possession of the same. As the land rates escalated, with mala fide intention criminal case was filed against the agreement holder A. Ganesh as well GPA holder B. Srinivas alleging that they have not executed any agreement. Police investigated into the matter, collected thumb impressions of the complainants and sent them to the Expert, Finger Prints Bureau for analysis, which reported that the thumb impressions are not forged one, and thus the criminal case came to an end. Thereafter petitioners and respondent Nos.4 to 6 approached the Mandal Revenue Officer, Keesara, claiming that they have not sold the disputed property. The Mandal Revenue Officer after due enquiry issued order dated 07-09-2001 holding that the land was sold. After failing in all the attempts, petitioners and respondent No.4 tried to interfere with the possession of respondent Nos.2 and 3 over the disputed property and they (R-2 and R-3) filed a civil suit in O.S. No.836 of 2001, wherein the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, granted temporary injunction initially and subsequently the same was made absolute. Assailing the same, C.M.A. No.43 of 2002 was filed by the petitioners on the file of Principal District Judge Court, Ranga Reddy District and the same was dismissed. 8. Meanwhile, assailing the correctness of the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 07-09-2001, petitioners etc. approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division, Hyderabad, who directed to settle the matter in the Civil Court and that was challenged by respondent Nos.2 and 3 before the Joint Collector and the Joint Collector confirmed the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer. 9. While things stood thus, petitioners and respondent Nos.4 to 6 set up one person by name P. Jayarama Raju on their behalf and he called upon respondent Nos.2 and 3 and sought, out of Court settlement and the matter was settled. To give quietus to the litigation, despite purchasing the property for valuable consideration under registered sale deed, respondent Nos.2 and 3 thought of entering into compromise. A compromise was entered and it was prepared and recorded by the Lok Adalat. In terms of the said compromise, respondent Nos.2 and 3 issued various cheques amounting to Rs.25.00 lakhs and out of that a cheque for Rs.16.00 lakhs was issued in favour of P. Jayarama Raju, who is representative of the petitioners and respondent Nos.4 to 6. The said compromise petition was referred to Lok Adalat – respondent No.1 herein and it made an enquiry into the matter and passed the award dated 19-11-2004. Respondent Nos.5 and 6, who are sons of petitioner No.2, informed the present respondent Nos.2 and 3 that their mother and also petitioner No.1 are bedridden, and therefore, they have given special vakalat to their counsel. Only thereafter, compromise was signed and cheques were issued. 10. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing the writ petition ? 11. The history of the litigation shows that petitioners and respondent Nos.4 to 6, after having sold the land, are trying to make some more money by raising all kinds of disputes, obviously encouraged by some interested persons. They have approached the civil Court and failed and thereafter they approached the revenue Courts where also they failed. The present suit O.S. No.836 of 2001 is for mere injunction and not for any other relief and obviously the defendants therein i.e. petitioners and respondent Nos.4 to 6 herein were not at all in possession of the disputed property, as such, interim injunction was granted against them and the same was made absolute and the C.M.A. filed the said injunction order was also dismissed. Thus, it was found that petitioners were not in possession of the property. 12. In such circumstances, it is possible that the parties were willing for compromise and the matter was settled before the Lok Adalat. Petitioners alleged cheating by their counsel in passing the award by the Lok Adalat, but there is no material to show the same or as to whether they have taken any action against the advocate concerned either by giving police complaint or complaint to Bar Council or at any other appropriate place. The Lok Adalat award was passed in the absence of the petitioners herein, but through their special vakalat, which ought not to have been done, we do not see anything to doubt the same as respondent Nos.4 to 6 who are sons of petitioner No.2 have signed on the award. In case, the award is not proper, there is no reason for respondent Nos.4 to 6 for not challenging the same by joining the writ petition. They are merely impleaded as respondents. 13. In the absence of any material in support of the contention of the petitioners that the award is vitiated by fraud, we feel that there is no point in protracting litigation. 14. In the award, an amount of Rs.16.00 lakhs is shown to be paid to one Jayarama Raju. It is not clear as to how and why the major portion of the amount was paid to said Jayarama Raju. It is contended by respondent Nos.2 and 3 that at one stage an agreement of sale was executed in favour of Jayarama Raju by petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and respondent Nos.4 to 6. We have no material about the same. 15. Admittedly, the cheque of Rs.9.00 lakhs issued for the benefit of the petitioners and respondent Nos.4 to 6 is not at all encashed till now and the cheques must have been become invalid. 16. In all these circumstances, we feel that payment of Rs.25.00 lakhs to the petitioners and respondent Nos.4 to 6 herein by respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein would meet the ends of justice and when a suggestion to that extent was made to the contesting respondents 2 and 3, they are agreeable for the same. 17. We are aware that no interest is being awarded and that is in view of the fact that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have already paid Rs.16.00 lakhs, major portion of the amount, to Jayarama Raju and to that extent respondent Nos.2 and 3 have lost the money though the petitioners herein and respondent Nos.4 to 6 are not benefited. To compensate that loss only, Rs.25.00 lakhs is again awarded to petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and respondent Nos.4 to 6 and the amount shall be equally shared between them. 18. Accordingly, we direct respondent Nos.2 and 3 to deposit Rs.25.00 lakhs (Rupees twenty five lakhs only) in to the lower Court within ten (10) days from today on the names of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and respondent Nos.4 to 6 herein equally i.e. Rs.5.00 lakhs each and the same shall be kept in five separate fixed deposits till all of them collectively or individually approach the lower Court for withdrawal; they must be allowed to withdraw their respective amounts on proper identification. The amount shall be deposited to the credit of O.S. No.836 of 2001 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. After depositing, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to file a memo before the Registry for recording the payment. 19. The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. 20. Before parting with the case, we feel it necessary to give appropriate directions to the State Legal Services Authority and we accordingly direct the State Legal Services Authority, Andhra Pradesh, to issue instructions to all the Presiding Officers to pass Lok Adalat Awards strictly in accordance with the provisions of Legal Services Authority Act and not to pass any Award without the personal signature of the parties concerned and never to pass any Award on the basis of signatures of the Special Vakalath holders and the like. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J April 1, 2008. __________________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J NOTE: 1. Furnish copy of the order by 03-04-2008. 2. Mark a copy of the order to the State Legal Services Authority, High Court of A.P., High Court Building premises, Hyderabad, for necessary action. (B/O) PV