*THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA + W.P.No.9860 of 2005 % 17-01-2008 # K.Lalithamma, W/o.late Siva Sankar Reddy, R/o.5/123B, Kolimi Street, Rajampet, Kadapa District .. Petitioner Vs. $ 1. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India (ADB), Rajampet, Kadapa District. 2. The Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, Tirupati, Chittoor District .. Respondents <GIST: >HEAD NOTE : ! Counsel for Petitioner:- Mr.Rathangapani Reddy ^ Counsel for respondents : Mr. Narender Reddy ^CASES REFERRED : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Writ Petition No.9860 of 2005 Date: 17th January, 2008 Between :- K. Lalithamma .. Petitioner And The Branch Manager, State Bank of India (ADB) Rajampet, Kadapa District And another .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Writ Petition No.9860 of 2005 ORDER:- The writ petitioner filed the present Writ Petition for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not returning the title deeds by demanding a further sum of Rs.88,500/- towards balance loan amount inspite of settlement of dispute by Lok Adalat vide proceedings in LSA No.3170/2003, R.A., dated 17-8-2003 on payment of Rs.15,000/- as full and final settlement of the loan amount as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Section 21(2) of the A.P.Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and consequently direct the respondents to return the title deeds of the petitioner, which are in the custody of the 1st respondent bank and pass such other suitable orders. 2. Sri Rathangapani Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner had taken this Court through the Award made by the Special Lok Adalat, Cuddapah, Camp at Rajampet, under Section 21 of the A.P.Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter, in short, would be referred to as ‘the Act’ for the purpose of convenience) and would maintain that in full settlement of the Bank claim, having accepted the amount in toto, the respondent – Banking Institution cannot take a different stand now. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through Section 21 of the Act aforesaid and the stand taken in the counter affidavit. The Counsel also would point out that even on a careful reading of the Award made by the Special Lok Adalat, referred to above, the stand taken in the counter affidavit cannot be said to be a sustainable stand for the reason that the explanation which is being added in the counter affidavit does not find a place at all in the said Award and hence such contention cannot be accepted. 3. On the contrary, Sri Narender Reddy, the standing Counsel representing the State Bank of India had taken this Court through the contents of the counter affidavit and would maintain that the Award is in a Printed Form and in fact, the note specifies paid Rs.15,000/-. The terms & settlement will be settled by the A.G.M. at the Branch of the Bank. The learned Counsel would contend that this would clarify the situation to the effect that the payment of Rs.15,000/- which had been recorded is not in full quit or in full settlement of the claim and hence the stand taken by the Banking Institution is a justifiable stand. The learned standing Counsel also placed before this Court the letter dt.19-2-2003 of the petitioner and also the legal notice dt.15-9-2004 and reply notice dt.20-9-2004 and further placed a copy of the Award also before this Court. 4. Heard the Counsel and perused the records. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that she borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- for house loan in the year 1998 from the 1st respondent Bank vide A/c.No.01593005722 by depositing the title deeds of her house and that she paid entire loan amount by paying all the instalments. It is further stated that the 1st respondent Bank raised the dispute saying that the petitioner is in arrears of some more loan amount for which the matter was referred to Legal Services Authority, Kadapa, which was numbered as LSA No.3170/2003 and finally the matter was settled by the Lok Adalat by passing an Award u/s.21 of the Act on payment of Rs.15,000/- by the petitioner before the authorities towards full and final settlement of loan amount vide proceedings L.S.A.No.3170/2003 R.A., dated 17-8- 2003. It is further averred that the petitioner had deposited title deeds of her house as security in the Bank and that she is entitled to get back the said title deeds from the respondent Bank. It is also stated that even after the Award was passed by the Lok Adalat, the respondents have not returned the petitioner’s documents for which she got issued a legal notice dt.15-9-2004 for which the 1st respondent issued reply notice stating that she has to pay a further amount of Rs.88,500/- towards loan and also stated that this demand of the respondent Bank goes against the spirit and intendment of the Award passed by the Lok Adalat. It is further averred that once the matter is settled in Lok Adalat and Award is passed under Section 21 of the Act, the dispute is closed once and for all and the respondents cannot reopen the dispute which was settled finally by the Lok Adalat and further it is stated that in fact para 2 of the Award says that Rs.15,000/- was paid by the petitioner towards full settlement of the Bank claim. Further it is stated that the respondents cannot turn back and say that para 2 of the Award was not deleted due to inadvertence and that the respondents cannot take such a stand after the Award has been passed by the Lok Adalat and that the stand taken by the respondents is against the letter and spirit of Section 21 of the Act and it is blameworthy, hence has to be deprecated. It is also further stated that the Award passed u/s.21 of the Act is a Decree and the matter is finally settled and is set at rest and it cannot be reopened on some flimsy grounds like inadvertently not deleted etc. Further it is stated that the intendment of the Section 21 of the Act is to settle the dispute finally and that the Award once passed under Section 21 of the Act does not contemplated reopening the dispute once it is settled by Lok Adalat. If the contention of the respondent is accepted, the entire purpose and intendment in enacting the Act will be defeated and that the action of the respondents to reopen a dispute settled finally by Lok Adalat is illegal, illogical, irrational and opposed to all canons of law, justice and equity. It is also stated that if the matter is allowed to be settled by Bank, after settlement before Lok Adalat, the purpose of conducting Lok Adalat has no meaning and that once the Bank authorities submit a matter to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat for settlement, they have to abide by the Award u/s.21 of the Act. It is also stated that the question of Bank authorities for reopening the matter, already adjudicated by the Lok Adalat, does not arise. Since the Award under Section 21 is final settlement of the dispute and it is irrevocable and cannot be altered or reopened. It is also stated that it is not open to the respondent Bank to adjudicate matters settled by Lok Adalat once an Award has been passed by the Lok Adalat. Further it is stated by the petitioner that aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not returning her title deeds by demanding Rs.88,5000/-, she filed petition in L.S.A.No.3170/2003 before Legal Services Authority, Kadapa, seeking directions to the respondents for release of her title deeds, however, without adjudicating upon the same, the matter was closed by the Legal Services Authority on 5-3-2005, which is highly illegal. It is further stated that if the title deeds of the petitioner are not returned to her, the petitioner will be put to serious loss. 6. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is averred that the petitioner had availed housing loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from the 1st respondent Bank after executing the security documents on 27-6-1998 and that as security for due repayment of the said loan amount, the petitioner created equitable mortgage over her immovable property bearing Door No.5/123 in Sy.No.990/4 situated at Kolimi Street, Rajampet town and Gram Panchayat, Kadapa District and that the allegation of the petitioner that she paid entire loan amount by paying all the instalments is not true and correct and the same is hereby denied and the petitioner shall be put to strict proof of the same. It is also averred that the petitioner submitted her representation dated 19-2-2003 to the 1st respondent Bank admitting the availment of the loan and outstanding balance in the loan account as on 19-2-2003, being Rs.1,21,395/- and interest due from April 2002 onwards and that in the said representation, the petitioner further stated that she is paying a sum of Rs.34,000/- and requested the 1st respondent Bank to settle the loan account by accepting Rs.8,500/- as full and final settlement. Further it is stated that after the representation dated 19-2-2003 of the petitioner and when the matter of compromise was under consideration of the 1st respondent Bank, the petitioner has approached the Special Lok Adalat, Kadapa, camp Court at Rajampet for settlement of loan account with the 1st respondent Bank and that after hearing both the parties, the Lok Adalat settled the matter on 17-8-2003 directing the 1st respondent Bank to settle the claim of the petitioner in the light of the representation made by her and that the 1st respondent Bank agreed to settle the claim of the petitioner as per the representation dated 19-2-2003 and that on such terms, the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the 1st respondent Bank before the Lok Adalat at Rajampet on 17-8-2003 and also stated that on payment of the said sum of Rs.15,000/-, the Lok Adalat, Rajampet passed Award on 17-8-2003 recording the payment of Rs.15,000/- by the petitioner and directed that the terms and conditions of compromise will be settled by the AGM at the Branch of the Bank. It is also stated that as per Award dated 17-8-2003, the higher authorities of the 1st respondent Bank accepted the compromise proposal made by the petitioner for a sum of Rs.88,500/- towards full and final settlement of loan account. It is also stated that the 1st respondent Bank informed the petitioner accordingly and requested for payment of the said compromise amount after deducting the amount of Rs.15,000/- paid before the Lok Adalat on 17-8-2003, but the petitioner failed to pay the compromise amount and got issued a legal notice dated 15-9-2004 to the respondents making all false allegations and that the respondents have issued reply dated 20-9-2004 through their Counsel requesting the petitioner for payment of the compromise amount. It is further stated that the petitioner failed to pay the compromise amount, the 1st respondent Bank filed E.P., before the Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, for attachment and sale of the mortgaged property and the said E.P. is pending disposal. It is also stated that the petitioner agreed to settle the loan account by paying a sum of Rs.88,500/- towards full and final settlement and when the said proposal was pending consideration, the petitioner approached the Lok Adalat, Rajampet, and agreed for settlement of the matter by paying the amount as agreed in the representation dated 19-2-2003. Further it is stated that before the Lok Adalat, the petitioner and the 1st respondent Bank agreed that the representation dated 19-2-2003 of the petitioner shall be accepted towards full and final settlement of the loan account for the sum of Rs.88,500/- and also it is stated that now the petitioner is taking advantage of a mistake in the Award dated 17-8-2003 and is demanding the respondents Bank for return of the title deeds and that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed in the Writ Petition as she has agreed to pay the amount as per the compromise letter dated 19-2-2003. In view of the said submissions, the Lok Adalat made the following endorsement in the Award dated 17-8-2003:- “Note:- paid Rs.15,000/-. The terms & settlement will be settled by the A.G.M. at the Branch of Bank.” Hence, it is stated that the allegation of the petitioner that the Lok Adalat settled the matter for a sum of Rs.15,000/- is not true and correct and the same had been denied and it is also stated that the petitioner had not approached this Court with clean hands. 7. These are the respective stands taken by the parties. 8. A memo had been filed before the Legal Services Authority, Kadapa, praying for the suitable directions for handing over the title deeds in the light of the Award made by the Lok Adalat. It is also stated that the said request was not considered at all and nothing had been adjudicated upon and the matter was closed by the Legal Services Authority on 5-3-2005. Section 21 of the Act reads as hereunder:- “Award of Lok Adalat:- (1) Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court or, as the case may be an order of any other Court and where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok Adalat in a case referred to it under sub-Section (1) of Section 20, the Court fee paid in such case shall be refunded in the manner provided under the Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870). (2) Every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the disputes and no appeal shall lie to any Court against the award.” 9. The respective Counsel on record made submissions at length pointing out to the contents of Award as such. It is no doubt true that the Award may have to be read as the Award stands and nothing supplemental as such can be added or be deleted. It is needless to say that these are the factual controversies what actually had transpired before the concerned Legal Services Authority cannot be effectively adjudicated upon by a Writ Court. In the light of language of Section 21 of the Act and also in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances, without expressing any further opinion relating to the other merits and demerits of the matter, this Court is inclined to direct the Legal Services Authority, Kadapa, to look into the grievance of the petitioner, verify all the records and pass appropriate orders in the light of the respective stands taken by the parties before this Court at an early date, preferably within a period of eight weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. _________________ Justice P.S.Narayana 17th January, 2008 Note: C.C. in three days smr