THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 17433 of 2009 Dated: 1-2-2011 Between Bandaru Adinarayana …Petitioner And The Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, rep. by its Member Secretary, Nyaya Seva Sadan, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Oral order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) Heard Sri N.Vidya Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Sri Raghu Ram, learned counsel for the 15th respondent and Smt M.Bhaskara Lakshmi, Sri K.Satyanarayana Murthy for the other respondents. The order in Pre-Litigation Case No. 76 of 2004 dated 31-3-2004 on the file of the District Legal Services Authority, Visakhapatnam is assailed in this writ petition. Respondents 4 to 14 instituted O.S.No. 361 of 1995 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam for specific performance of sale against the defendants who are the petitioner’s mother (now deceased) Smt. Bandaru Thayamma and the petitioner, in respect of an extent of Ac.3-82 cents in old Sy.No. 42/C, corresponding to Re-survey No. 9/1 of Madhavadhara village, Visakhapatnam. The defendants including the writ petitioner contested the suit on several aspects. The suit was decreed on 26-3- 2004 in part declining the relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale but granting the relief of refund of Rs.20,000/- being the advance under the suit agreement of sale and an amount of Rs.2,80,000/- towards damages, in all Rs.3,00,000/- with interest. No appeal was preferred thereagainst by either party. According to the averments in the writ petition, when the petitioner approached the Special Officer and Competent Authority under the Urban Land Ceiling (ULC), Visakhapatnam it was informed by the clerical staff that an award was passed by the Lok Adalath at Visakhapatnam. On further enquiry he came to learn about the impugned award dated 31-3-2004. Petitioner disclaims to have attended the Lok Adalath, Visakhapatnam on 31-3-2004 or ever and disclaims having signed the award. He contends that the signature on each page of the award purported to be his does not belong to him and he never signed the award and that his signatures were forged and impersonated by respondents 4 to 14 herein. The 15th respondent who was impleaded by the order of this Court dated 23-12-2009 in W.P.M.P.No. 30591 of 2009 also contest the claim of the petitioner in this writ petition. This respondent, inter alia, contends that the petitioner executed a sale deed dated 8-4-2004 being document No. 971 of 2004 on the file of the Sub-Registrar’s Office, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam whereby an extent of 1055 Sq. yards in Sy.No. 9/1 of Madhavadhara village within the limits of Visakhapatnam was sold by the petitioner for a consideration of Rs.10,02,250/-. In the sale deed executed by the writ petitioner, it is clearly mentioned that on account of certain litigations pertaining to the agreement dated 25-2-1985 executed by his late mother B.Tayamma in favour of S.Ramanujulu alias Ramanujacharyulu and others O.S.No. 361 of 1995 was filed by the said S.Ramanujulu and others, that after the intervention of well meaning persons belonging to both the parties, the matter was compromised and a compromise petition was filed and a decree dated 31-3-2004 was obtained in PLC No. 76 of 2004 and as a part of such compromise, the petitioner became the absolute owner for an extent of 1055 Sq., yards on the intestate demise of his mother Smt B.Tayamma on 24-1-2000. On behalf of the 15th respondent, it is contended that the execution of the sale deed by the writ petitioner, clearly evidenced knowledge of the petitioner of the award dated 31-3-2004 in PLC No. 76 of 2004 and that the present contention in the writ petition that the signature in the award does not belong to him, was forged and that the signature in the award was manipulated by respondents 4 to 14 in the writ petition, is misconceived. Sri N.Vidya Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner would however contend that the impugned award is also doubtful on several counts, since the terms of the compromise are extremely unfavourable to his interests. Such a contention is not available to contest a compromise. No principle or text is brought to our notice which enjoins that a litigant can enter into a compromise only on terms which are conducive to his interest. A compromise is essentially an accommodation and a variety of factors enter into consideration for compromise. Be that as it may. Since there is a serious dispute between the parties; on behalf of the petitioner, contending that he is not a signatory to the award dated 31-3-2004 in PLC No. 76 of 2004 and the respondents contending that the petitioner was a signatory to the award and which is binding on him; the appropriate litigative course, should the petitioner continue to be aggrieved is to move the appropriate Civil Court of competent jurisdiction to seek a declaration as to the validity of the award dated 31-3-2004 of the District Legal Services Authority, Visakhapatnam in PLC No. 76 of 2004. Proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, we do not consider to be the appropriate procedure. There is also no bar under the provisions of the State Legal Services Act, 1987 which hinders a litigative strategy of a suit challenging the award of the Lok Adalat on the ground that a compromise has been recorded to which he is not a party in the sense of not being a signatory to the terms of the compromise or that his signature is forged and the award is thus procured by fraud and deceit. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the appropriate alternative remedy. There shall however be no order as to costs. __________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 1st February, 2011 ________________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J GRR