Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
K Noor Mohammed vs The Lok Adalat Bench At Chittor on 17 October, 2025
Author: R Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
1
RRR,J& TCDS,J
W.P.No.23013 of 2024
APHC010447672024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3529]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION NO: 23013/2024
Between:
1. K NOOR MOHAMMED, S/O LATE K.B.MASTHAN SAHEB MUSLIM,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, RESIDING AT D.NO.1-
99, REDDIVARI STREET, DAMALCHERUVU VILLAGE, PAKALA
MANDAL. CHITTOR DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE LOK ADALAT BENCH AT CHITTOR, DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES
AUTHORITY , DISTRICT COURT COMPOUND, CHITTOR (O.S.NO.604
OF 2011 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGES
COURT, CHITTOR), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. DUDDU RAJA, S/O DUDDU SUBRAMANYAM HINDU, AGED ABOUT
40 YEARS. BUSINESS AND CULTIVATION RESIDING AT D.NO.4-
1438, VELLORE ROAD, GREAMSPET, CHITTOR TOWN AND
DISTRICT AND DOING BUSINESS IN DAMALCHERUVU VILLAGE,
PAKALA MANDAL. CHITTOR DISTRICT.
3. DUDDU SRIHARI, S/O DUDDU MUNIRAMASWAMY CHETTY HINDU,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, BUSINESS, R/O D.N0.15-473/A, RAJIV
GANDHI ROAD, SARAVANAPURAM, CHITTOR-517002
4. DUDDU KRISHNAMOORTHY, S/O DUDDU MUNIRAMASWAMY
CHETTY HINDU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 15-
2
RRR,J& TCDS,J
W.P.No.23013 of 2024
473/A, RAJIV GANDHI ROAD, SARAVANAPURAM, CHITTOR-517002
5. DUDDU DEVENDRAN, S/O DUDDU CHENNAKESAVULU CHEETY
HINDU, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, BUSINESS, R/O D.N0.15-473/A,
RAJIV GANDHI ROAD, SARAVANAPURAM, CHITTOR-517002
6. SMT CHALLURU KANTHAMMA, W/O CHALLURU CHENGALRAYA
CHETTY HINDU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, D.NO.65-184, NEW
COLONY, PAKALA TOWN, CHITTOR DISTRICT
7. SMT CHALLURU VARALAKSHMMA, W/O E.SUNDARARAJULU,
HINDU, AGED 65 YEARS, D.NO.65-184, NEW COLONY, PAKALA
TOWN, CHITTOR DISTRICT.
8. NAMBURI GOPALAKRISHNA GUPTA, S/O CHANDRASEKHAR
GUPTHA HINDU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, BUSINESS, RESIDING AT
D.NO.4-5, BAZAR STREET, CHOWDEPALLE VILLAGE AND MANDAL,
CHITTOR DISTRICT- 517257.
9. SMT K S RAMEEJA BEE, W/O K.S.MASTHAN MUSLIM, AGED 55
YEARS , RESIDING AT MANGO NAGAR, OPPOSITE RAILWAY
STATION, DAMALCHERUVU VILLAGE, PAKALA MANDAL, CHITTOR
DISTRICT 517152
10. K S MASTHAN, S/O KUKKANTI S.BASHA SAHEB MUSLIM, AGED 60
YEARS, RESIDING MANGO NAGAR, OPPOSITE RAILWAY STATION,
DAMALCHERUVU VILLAGE, PAKALA MANDAL, CHITTOR DISTRICT
517152
11. S A SATHAR SAHEB, S/O KUKKANT S.BASHA SAHEB MUSLIM,
AGED 65 YEARS(DIED HIS L.RS. DLL AND 12)
12. S A FAZURALLA, S/O S.A.SATHAR SAHEB, MUSLIM, AGED 35
YEARS. BUSINESS, RESIDING AT SANDU STREET, H.NO. 1-65,
,DAMALACHERUVU VILLAGE PAKALA MANDAL, CHITTOR
DISTRICT-517152
13. K AMJATHULLA, S/O S.A.SATHAR SAHEB MUSLIM, AGED 33 YEARS.
BUSINESS, RESIDING AT H.NO.1-65, DAMALACHERUVU VILLAGE
PAKALA MANDAL, CHITTOR DISTRICT517152
14. K B MASTHAN SAHEB, S/O KUKKANTI S.BASHA SAHEB MUSLIM,
AGED 62 YEARS, MUSLIM, AGED 35 YEARS. BUSINESS, RESIDING
AT DAMALACHERUVU VILLAGE PAKALA MANDAL, CHITTOR
3
RRR,J& TCDS,J
W.P.No.23013 of 2024
DISTRICT
15. K NIJAMUDDIN, S/O K.B.MASTHAN MUSLIM AGED ABOUT 28
YEARS, MUSLIM, AGED 35 YEARS. BUSINESS, RESIDING AT
REDDYVARI STREET, OPPOSITE SAPTHAGIRI BANK,
DAMALACHERUVU VILLAGE PAKALA MANDAL, CHITTOR
DISTRICT517152
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the Award Dated.13.06.2015 passed by the 1st Respondent in O.S.No.604 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judges Court, Chittor, vide L.A. Application No.250 of 2015, as illegal arbitrary and vitiated by fraud and is contrary to the principles of procedural law principal of natural justice, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to grant leave to file counter on behalf of respondent No.2 to 4 pending disposal of W.P.No.23013 of 2024 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. S SYAMSUNDER RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. VIVEKANANDA VIRUPAKSHA
2. K ASAD AHAMED
3. L J VEERA REDDY
4. PAWAN KUMAR MALAPATI
5. S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY 4 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.23013 of 2024 The Court made the following order:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner herein is said to have entered into an agreement of sale, dated 03.08.2015,along with one D. Babu Prasad Reddy with Smt.C. Kowsalya and Smt. Aswini Bushan who are said to be the daughter and daughter-in-law of late Challuru Ramanadham Chetty, for purchase of an extent of Ac.1.10 cents in various survey numbers of Damalacheruvu, Chittoor District. The petitioner and Sri B. Babu Prasad Reddy are said to have filed O.S.No.323 of 2015 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor for specific performance of the agreement of sale, dated 03.08.2015, and the same came to be decreed on 02.01.2024.
2. The petitioner states that the 2nd respondent herein, had filed O.S.No.604 of 2011, against the petitioner and respondents 3 to 15 herein seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction regarding the same property, including the share of Challuru Ramanadham Chetty. The petitioner and certain other defendants in the said suit had been set exparte. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent, who was the plaintiff in the suit and defendants 5, 8, 9, 11 and 12 in the said suit, had entered into a compromise between themselves and the same was referred to the Lok-Adalat and an award of the Lok-Adalat, dated 13.06.2015, was passed on the basis of the settlement.
3. After the award of the Lok-Adalat, the legal heirs of defendants 10 and 11 in O.S.No.604 of 2011, namely the vendors of the petitioner, are said 5 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.23013 of 2024 to have filed O.S.No.436 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chittoor against the petitioner and other defendants. This suit came to be decreed, on the ground that the Lok-Adalat award, dated 13.06.2015, had not been challenged and the same establishes title and possession of the plaintiffs in the said suit.
4. The petitioner, on the basis of the aforesaid facts had approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Petition challenging the award, dated 13.06.2015.
5. Sri S. Syamsunder Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the award requires tobe set-aside inasmuch as the petitioner was not a party to the award and the same cannot be binding on the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the following judgments:
1) Nallala Anjavva and another vs. Lok Adalat Bench at Sircilla, RajannaSircilla District and others1. (para No.8)
2) B. Srinath Reddy vs. District Legal Service Authority, Kadapa and Others.2 (para Nos.23, 30, 38, 39 and 42)
3) Boreddy Venkata Narayana Reddy vs. Mandal Legal Service Committee and Others.3 (para No.8) 1 2018(1)ALD 424 DB 2 2019(6) ALD 443 DB 3 2023 Supreme (A) 688 6 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.23013 of 2024
6. Sri L. Lakshmi Narayana, learned Standing Counsel for the Lok- Adalat would contend that the petitioner having been set ex parte in O.S.No.604 of 2011, cannot have any complaint against the final decree in the said suit either by way of an order on merits or by way of compromise between the parties. He would submit that the only exception to this rule would be a suit for partition where defendants who have been set ex parte are entitled to a notice before any compromise is recorded. He relies upon the following judgments:
1. Mrinmoy Maity vs. Chhanda Koley and Others.4
2. P.V Narayana vs. APSRTC, Hyderabad and Others.5
7. Sri Vivekananda Virupaksha, learned counsel for respondents 12 and 13 would contend that the Writ Petition is not maintainable and is barred by latches. Learned counsel would point out that the petitioner had entered into an agreement of sale, in the year 2015, while O.S.No.604 of 2011 had been filed four years before the said agreement of sale. He would also point out that the agreement of sale itself is subsequent to the award dated 13.06.2015.
8. Learned counsel would also contend that the petitioner was fully aware of the passing of the award dated 13.06.2015 and had kept silent for more than nine years before approaching this Court. He would submit that the 4 (2024) 4 S.C.R.506 :2024 INSC 314 5 2013 (4) ALD 386 (FB) 7 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.23013 of 2024 subsequent documents bear out this contention. Respondents 12 and 13 have filed registered deeds of sale dated 22.01.2018 and General Power of Attorney dated 17.02.2018. In these documents, which were attested by the petitioner, details of the award were specially mentioned. He would submit that in such circumstances, the writ requires to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of facts as well as latches apart from the merits of the case.
9. The General Power of Attorney, dated 17.02.2018, was executed by the 2nd respondent in favour of one Sri C.J. Dinesh Kumar Reddy, in relation to land which was the subject matter of the impugned award. In fact, the impugned award was specifically mentioned, in the document. The petitioner had signed as a witness to this document. The power of attorney holder, on the basis of the aforesaid power of attorney had executed two sale deeds, conveying the property, which was the subject matter of the impugned award. The petitioner has signed in these two documents also as a witness.
10. In view of these facts, which are not disputed, there are two reasons why the writ petition is not maintainable. Firstly, on the ground of latches, as no explanation is given for the delay of 7 years in approaching this Court and secondly on the ground of suppression of fact. There is no mention of the fact that the petitioner was aware of the impugned award earlier and there is no mention of the fact that the petitioner had signed as a witness in the documents of transfer of property, which was also the subject matter of the impugned award.
8
RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.23013 of 2024
11. This Court, keeping in mind, the aforesaid observations, does not find it necessary to go into the questions of law and fact raised by the parties.
12. Accordingly, this Writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________ R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO,J _______________ T.C.D.SEKHAR,J RJS 9 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.23013 of 2024 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO & HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION No: 23013 of 2024 (per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Dt: 17.10.2025 RJS