HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY W.P. No.1796 OF 2007 Dated 17-8-2010 Between: Palagani Narayana and others. …Petitioners. And: The Mandal Legal Services Authority, Pungunur, Chittoor District and another. …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY W.P. No.1796 OF 2007 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners who are six in number assailing the inaction of the Mandal Legal Services Authority, Pungunur, Chittor District in registering the petition to set aside the award passed in O.S.No.250 of 1999. 2. The background facts in nutshell are as follows: Palagani Gangulamma filed O.s.No.250 of 1999 against Palagani Ramachandra 2nd respondent herein for injunction in respect of Ac.4.20 cents comprising survey No.74/2 of Gollapalle village Hamlet of Somala Mandal of Chittoor District. The suit claim came to be settled in Lok Adalat and accordingly the suit came to be decreed in part. The plaintiff died on 14-12-2004. The petitioners herein who are the husband and children of Palagani Gangulamma filed an application before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Pungunur seeking declaration that in the suit, settlement of the suit claim in Lok Adalat is not legal and the same is vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation. The said application came to be rejected by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Punganur on 16-12-2005 on the ground that the Court has no jurisdiction to cancel the award passed by the Lok Adakat. Subsequently, the petitioners herein filed an application before the Mandal Legal services Authority, Punganur to enquire into the matter and set aside the Lok Adalat award dated 21-10-2000. There being no action on the part of the Mandal Legal Services Authority, the petitioners approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. 4. Rule nisi came to be issued on 2-2-2007. 5. Respondent No.2 entered appearance through a counsel. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 2nd respondent played fraud and got the case settled in Lok Adalat which ultimately culminated into an Award dated 21-10- 2000 and that the award is vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation and therefore, it is liable to be set aside. A further submission has been made that necessary application has been moved before the Mandal Legal Services Authority, Pungunur, Chittoor District to set aside the award and as Mandal Legal Services Authority has not taken any action on the said application, the petitioners are constrained to approach this Court by invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. It is well settled that the award passed by the Lok Adalat can only be challenged by filing petition under Article 226/227 of Constitution vide judgment in STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER v. JALOUR SINGH AND OTHERS ([1]). A Division Bench of this Court in SANJAY KUMAR AND ANOTHER v. SECRETARY, CITY CIVIL COURT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS ([2]), held that 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. I deem it appropriate to refer para 13 of the said Judgment, and it reads as follows: “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.” 8. In view of the settled legal position, the petitioners have to question the award passed by the Lok Adalat in O.S.No.250 of 1999 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Punganur by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court vide Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 9. Reserving the said liberty, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________________________ Justice B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Date: 17-8-2010. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY W.P. No.1796 OF 2007 Dated 17-8-2010 [1] 2008 AIR SCW 1196 [2] 2010 (3) ALT 289 (D.B)