Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Majji Naga Venkata Satyanarayana vs The Mandal Legal Services Committee on 14 October, 2024
Author: R Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
APHC010619552022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3488]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 37026/2022
Between:
Majji Naga Venkata Satyanarayana ...PETITIONER
AND
The Mandal Legal Services Committee and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. S.V.S.S.SIVA RAM Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. K SUBRAHMANYAM
2. S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY The Court made the following order:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao) The respondents 6 & 7 had filed O.S.No.114 of 2009, before the Learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam, against the respondents 2 to 5 & 8, for declaration of their right, title and possession over an extent of 46 cents of land in Sy.No.199/3 of Kanchugummala Village, Roluganta mandal, Visakhapatnam District.2
RRR, J & HN, J W.P.No.37026 of 2022
2. During the pendency of this suit, the respondents 2 to 5 & 8 had sold the said property to the writ petitioner herein by way of a registered deed of sale dated 03.08.2014, vide document No.2131/2014.
3. As the 2nd defendant in the said suit had passed away, the respondents 2 to 5 were brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased 2nd defendant, by way of an order dated 20.02.2013 in I.A.No.203 of 2013. Subsequently, the petitioner herein was also impleaded as 7 th defendant, by way of an order dated 04.08.2016, in I.A.No.121 of 2016.
4. The Trial Court, after completion of the trial, had allowed the suit by way of a Judgment and decree dated 12.09.2018. The Trial Court, had also observed, in the Judgment, that the 7th defendant/writ petitioner herein, despite notices being sent, had refused to accept the said notices and had not filed his written statement due to which he was set exparte and that the judgment was being pronounced.
5. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and decree, the respondents 2 to 5 had filed A.S.No.46 of 2019 before the Learned Senior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam. It appears that the petitioner herein, who was arrayed as 4th respondent in the Appeal Suit, was represented by a counsel and was participating in the Appeal proceedings.
6. At that stage, the respondents 2 to 5 on one hand and respondents 6 to 8 on the other hand, had got the appeal referred to the Lok 3 RRR, J & HN, J W.P.No.37026 of 2022 Adalat and had filed their compromise terms. Subsequently, an award, dated 11.09.2021, was passed in terms of the said compromise by the Lok Adalat Bench, Narsipatnam, under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, r/w Amendment Act, 1994.
7. The terms of the award stated that the appeal against the 1st defendant/ 8th respondent herein and the 7th defendant in the suit, namely the writ petitioner herein, was not being pressed. It was stated that the appeal against the 1st defendant/ 8th respondent herein was not being pressed as she had passed away without leaving any legal heirs and the appeal against the 7th defendant/ writ petitioner herein was not being pressed as the 7th defendant/writ petitioner had no right, title or possession over the scheduled property.
8. A perusal of the terms of the compromise would show that the writ petitioner was not a party to the terms of the compromise nor did he sign the said compromise terms. A perusal of the award would show that the writ petitioner had not been made a party to the award and had not signed the said award. However, the award was counter-signed by the members of the Lok Adalat Bench including the presiding Judge.
9. This award, dated 11.09.2021, has now been challenged by the writ petitioner before this Court. The main ground of challenge is that the writ petitioner was unaware of the reference of the appeal to the Lok Adalat Bench and the subsequent passing of the award. The writ petitioner would submit 4 RRR, J & HN, J W.P.No.37026 of 2022 that he has approached this Court after coming to know of the passing of the said award.
10. Sri S.V.S.S. Siva Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon a Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 06.01.2022, reported in Manu/AP/0036/2022 Yalamarthi Narasimha Rao vs. District Legal Services Authority and others.
11. The respondents 6 & 7 have filed a counter affidavit along with certain material papers.
12. Sri K. Subrahmanyam, learned counsel appearing for respondents 6 & 7 would contend that the writ petition itself is not maintainable as the petitioner had not approached this Court with clean hands and had suppressed vital facts. He would further submit that the writ petitioner, having refused to accept the notice when the notice was sent in the suit proceedings, cannot now challenge any part of the proceedings. The learned counsel would draw the attention of this Court to a sale deed, dated 25.02.2016 registered as document No.383/2016 wherein the writ petitioner is said to have sold away the property to a third party. The learned counsel would also draw the attention of this Court to the plaint copy in O.S.No.152 of 2021 filed before the Learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam, wherein the subsequent purchaser had sought declaration of title and injunction over the property against the respondents 6 & 7 herein. 5
RRR, J & HN, J W.P.No.37026 of 2022
13. The contention of Sri K. Subrahmanyam, learned counsel appearing for respondents 6 & 7 is that, the present Writ Petition is barred by limitation as the award was passed in the year 2021 and the Writ Petition has been filed in the year 2022.
14. The method and manner in which the award has to be passed is regulated by the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 r/w Amendment Act, 1994 as well as the regulations made under the said Act. The National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalat) Regulations 2009 are one set of regulations made in relation to the manner in which a Lok Adalat award is to be passed. The regulation 17 would be relevant and reads as follows:
"17. Award.- (1) Drawing up of the award is merely an administrative act by incorporating the terms of settlement or compromise agreed by parties under the guidance and assistance from Lok Adalat.
(2) When both parties sign or affix their thumb impression and the members of the Lok Adalat countersign it, it becomes an award. (see a specimen at Appendix-I) Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be categorical and lucid and shall be written in regional language used in the local courts or in English. It shall also contain particulars of the case viz., case number, name of court and names of parties, date of receipt, register number assigned to the case in the permanent Register (maintained as provided under Regulation-20) and date of settlement. Wherever the parties are represented by counsel, they should also be required to sign the settlement or award before the members of the Lok Adalat affix their signature.
(3) ......."6
RRR, J & HN, J W.P.No.37026 of 2022
15. A reading of the regulation makes it clear that all the parties to the litigation would have to sign the terms of compromise as well as the award before the said award can be counter-signed by the members of the Lok Adalat Bench. The Division Bench of this Court, in the Judgment cited above, after reviewing the law and the regulations, had issued certain directions which are set out below.
(a) we, hereby direct the members of Lok Adalat, more particularly, the Sub-ordinate Officers dealing with the Lok Adalat cases to verify the documents of the suit or atleast the plaint copy to find out as to whether all the parties before the Civil Court are made parties before the Lok Adalat.
(b) Photographs of the parties may also be taken at the time of passing of the award, with signature of the parties on the photographs, so as to avoid impersonation.
(c) Legal Services authorities, at all levels, are directed to maintain the record of disposed off cases, namely the applications filed, photographs along with the application, documents, if any, filed along with the application and the award passed, atleast for a period of three years from the date of award.
(d) The members or member of the Lok Adalat shall find out from the parties as to pendency of any other proceedings in respect of the subject property between the parties in any other Court and orders if any passed. The same shall also be recorded in the order/award.
(e) The members of the Lok Adalat shall verify if the compromise/settlement is between all the parties and if it finds 7 RRR, J & HN, J W.P.No.37026 of 2022 that it is not between all but some of the parties, it shall consider if such compromise may have adverse effect on the party who has not entered into compromise. If it so affects award shall not be passed based on such compromise.
(f) If all the parties before the Civil Court are parties before the Lok Adalat, but during the pendency of the proceedings before the Lok Adalat, any application is filed or request is made to delete the name of any of the parties as not being necessary or proper party or being a formal party and non contesting party, the Lok Adalat shall before acceding to such request shall provide opportunity to such party before deletion of his/her name and shall also consider the impact of the award based on compromise/settlement between the parties other than the party sought to be deleted on the rights of the party sought to be deleted or alleged as proforma and non-contesting party.
16. A conjoint reading of the terms as the regulations as well as the directions of the Judgment of this Court put it beyond the pale of controversy that an award under the provisions of the Legal Services Authority Act can be passed only after all the parties to the litigation are made party to the said award. The absence of any party would render the award non-est. However, the Division Bench, while considering this aspect, had also stated that it would be open to the parties to delete any of the parties to the litigation from the award proceedings. This deletion would be subject to the requirement of notice being given to the party which is proposed to be deleted and after the Lok Adalat Bench hears the parties before accepting such deletion. 8
RRR, J & HN, J W.P.No.37026 of 2022
17. In the present case, the writ petitioner is not a party to the terms of the compromise or the award proceedings. It is also apparent that no notice of any nature was given to the Writ Petitioner before he was deleted from the array of parties from the terms of compromise or the award.
18. In such circumstances, it must be held that the award is non-est. Consequently, the appeal would revive and shall be heard either on its merits or by way of a settlement in accordance with law.
19. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand closed.
_______________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J ______________ HARINATH.N, J 14.10.2024 MJA 9 RRR, J & HN, J W.P.No.37026 of 2022 144 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 37026 of 2022 (per Hon'ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao) 14.10.2024 MJA