1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7295 OF 2008 Sau.Lata Namdeo Bodake .. Petitioner versus Rajiv Manohar Karamblekar & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.R.M.Haridas for the petitioner. Mr.Tushar Sonawane for respondent No.1. Mr.G.S.Godbole a/w Ms.Pallavi N. Dabholkar for respondent Nos.3 and 4. Mr.S.D.Rayrikar, A.G.P for respondent Nos.5 to 7. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 14th January 2010. P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, learned counsel appearing for 3rd and 4th respondents and learned A.G.P for respondent Nos.5 to 7. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged compromise award/decree dated 16th December 2005 passed by Lok Adalat in a Special Civil Suit No.69 of 2002. 2. A Special Civil Suit No.69 of 2002 was filed by the 8th respondent herein against the 1st and 9th respondents. In the said suit, before the Lok Adalat, consent terms were filed duly signed by the 1st respondent as well as 8th and 9th respondents. The suit and consent terms relate to land bearing Survey No.704, Hissa No.1/8 admeasuring 2000 sq.ft situated at Nasik, District Nasik. The 2 consent terms provide that there is a settlement between the parties as regards suit property and six plots abutting the suit property. The consent terms provide that the suit property will be purchased by the 2nd defendant (1st respondent herein) from the 9th respondent (1st defendant to the suit). The 8th respondent (plaintiff) agreed to sign the document as a confirming party. The consent decree/award was passed on the basis of the consent terms. 3. The case of the petitioner is that an Agreement for Sale dated 5th November 1998 was allegedly executed by the 1st respondent herein in her favour relating to the suit property subject matter of the said suit. According to the case of the petitioner, she has paid a sum of RS.6,00,000/- to the 1st respondent and Sale Deed was to be executed within a period of four years from the receipt of final lay out and NA order. According to the case of the petitioner, on 5th November 1998 balance consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid by the petitioner to the 1st respondent. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that behind the back of the petitioner, a compromise was arrived at between the 1st respondent as well as 8th and 9th respondents. His submission is that the 1st respondent illegally transferred the property to 2nd respondent and the 1st and 2nd respondents have granted development rights in respect of the suit property to 3rd and 4th respondents. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the rights of the petitioner are affected by the consent decree/award made by the Lok Adalat. He submitted that this petition is maintainable in view of the 3 decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and Anr Vs. Jalour Singh & Ors (AIR 2008 Supreme Court 1209). 5. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that a writ petition is not maintainable for challenging an award/consent decree passed by the Lok Adalat. He submitted that in any event, the petitioner has already filed a substantive suit for specific performance of the alleged Agreement for Sale dated 5th November 1998 and the petitioner will have to establish her rights in the said suit. The learned counsel appearing for 3rd and 4th respondents placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of P.T.Thomas Vs. Thomas Job [(2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 478] and submitted that a petition either under Article 226 or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable for challenging the award made by the Lok Adalat. She submitted that in any case no relief can be sought as against the 3rd and 4th respondents in this petition as the said respondents were not parties to the suit in which award has been made by the Lok Adalat. She invited attention of the Court to the affidavit in reply of the 4th respondent in which it is stated that 3rd and 4th respondents are bonafide purchasers for value. She, therefore, submitted that writ petition be rejected. The learned A.G.P appearing for the State submitted that no interference is called for. 6. The first question which needs to be decided is regarding the maintainability of this writ petition. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd and 4th respondents on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of P.T.Thomas (supra). A reliance has been placed on what is held by the 4 Apex Court in paragraph 23 of the said decision. The relevant portion of the said paragraph read thus: “....Though the award of a Lok Adalat is not a result of a contest on merits just as a regular suit by a court in a regular trial is, however, it is an equal and on a part with a decree on compromise and will have the same binding effect and be conclusive. Just as the decree passed on compromise cannot be challenged in a regular appeal, the award of the Lok Adalat, being akin to the same, cannot be challenged by any of the regular remedies available under law, including by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution and challenging the correctness of the award, on any ground. Judicial review cannot be invoked in such awards, especially on the grounds as were raised in the revision petition.” Her submission is that the Award of the Lok Adalat is on par with an executable decree and therefore constitutional remedy under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not available to the petitioner for challenging the decree. The said decision in the case of P.T.Thomas (supra) has been delivered by a Bench consisting of two Hon’ble Judges. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is relying upon a subsequent decision of the Apex Court of a larger Bench in the case of State of Punjab (supra). The larger Bench of the Apex Court considered the provisions of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and in particular sections 20 and 21 thereof. In paragraph 12 of the said decision, the Apex Court has held thus: “12. It is true that where an award is made by Lok Adalat in terms of a settlement arrived at between the parties, (which is duly signed by parties and annexed to the award of the Lok Adalat), it becomes final and binding on the parties to the settlement and becomes executable as if it is a decree of a civil court, and no appeal lies against it to any court. If any party wants to challenge such an award based on settlement, it can be done only by filing a petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution, that too on very limited grounds. But where no 5 compromise or settlement is signed by the parties and the order of the Lok Adalat does not refer to any settlement, but directs the respondent to either make payment if it agrees to the order, or approach the High Court for disposal of appeal on merits, if it does not agree, is not an award of the Lok Adalat. The question of challenging such an order in a petition under Article 227 does not arise. As already noticed, in such a situation, the High Court ought to have heard and disposed of the appeal on merits.” (Emphasis added) The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd and 4th respondents submitted that only a party to the Award can challenge the award as held by the Apex Court in the said decision. The larger Bench of the Apex Court has held that if any party wants to challenge such an Award based on settlement, it can be done only by filing a petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution of India and that also on very limited ground. 7. In view of the decision of a larger Bench of the Apex Court, any aggrieved party including a person who is not a party to the proceedings in which Award has been made by a Lok Adalat is entitled to challenge the Award by filing a petition under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. It is obvious that the challenge will be on a very limited ground as observed by the Apex Court. Therefore, objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition will have to be rejected. 8. Now coming to the merits of the matter, the challenge in this petition is to an Award to which 3rd and 4th respondents are not parties. Therefore, the said respondents could not have impleaded as petitioner to this petition. Perusal of the consent terms on the basis of which the Award has been made shows that an 6 agreement between the parties to the suit has been recorded therein. The petitioner is not a party to the said agreement. It is, therefore, obvious that the petitioner is not bound by the Award passed by the Lok Adalat. If the petitioner has any right, he is entitled to establish the said right by filing appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. It is pointed out across the Bar that the petitioner has already filed a suit for specific performance of Agreement for Sale dated 5th November 1998. 9. As stated above, the petitioner is not bound by the impugned consent Award/decree and therefore, it is not necessary to entertain this writ petition. 10. Subject to what is observed above, no case for interference is made out. Writ petition is accordingly rejected. It is made clear that rights and contentions of all the contesting parties on merits are expressly kept open. (A.S.OKA,J)