Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
.Balla Veera Venkata Satyanarayana ... vs The State Of Ap on 8 November, 2019
Author: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
Bench: C.Praveen Kumar, Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AT AMARAVATI
*****
Writ Petition No.6190 of 2019
Between
1. Balla Veera Venkata Satyanarayana @ Sathi Babu,
S/o. Late Tatabbai, Aged about 61 years, Business,
Devi Sri Devi Silk House & Garments, Muslim Street,
Amalapuram, East Godavari District;
and another
... Petitioners
and
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Prl. Secretary,
Law Dept., Secretariat Bldgs, Velagapudi, Amaravati,
Tullur Mandal, Guntur District;
and 2 others
... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 08-11-2019
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
1 Whether Reporters of Local Yes/No
newspapers may be allowed to see
the Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment Yes/No
may be marked to Law
Reports/Journals
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship Yes/No
wish to see the fair copy of the
Judgment?
_________________________________________
CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J.
2 CPKJ & CMR, J.
wp_6190_2019 * HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY + Writ Petition No.6190 of 2019 % 08-11-2019 # 1. Balla Veera Venkata Satyanarayana @ Sathi Babu, S/o. Late Tatabbai, Aged about 61 years, Business, Devi Sri Devi Silk House & Garments, Muslim Street, Amalapuram, East Godavari District;
and another ... Petitioners Vs. $ 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Law Dept., Secretariat Bldgs, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Tullur Mandal, Guntur District;
and 2 others ... Respondents ! Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri G.Simhadri Counsel for Respondent No.1: Govt. Pleader for Home Counsel for Respondent No.2: Govt. Pleader for Services-I Counsel for Respondent No.3: Sri Ravi Kumar Tolety < Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
Nil.3
CPKJ & CMR, J.
wp_6190_2019 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Writ Petition No.6190 of 2019 Order: (per Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J.) The petitioners challenge the Lok Adalat award dated 09-10-2018 in L.A.C.No.614/2018 in A.S.No.37 of 2012 in this writ petition on the ground that it was vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation, violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to mandatory provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and thereby prayed to set aside the award.
2. Myriad and manifold averments are made in the writ petition, which are not germane to adjudicate the dispute. Therefore, shorn of the irrelevant details, facts germane to dispose of the writ petition may briefly be stated as follows:
(a) The 3rd respondent herein and his wife who is now no more, have filed the suit O.S.No.39 of 2018 on the file of Senior Civil Judge's Court, Amalapuram, against the defendants therein who are the petitioners herein for eviction.
During the pendency of the said suit, the petitioners/ defendants have filed a suit O.S.No.25 of 2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judge's Court, Amalapuram, seeking execution of registered lease deed in respect of the disputed property. While the said suit in O.S.No.25 of 2011 was pending, the suit for eviction in O.S.No.39 of 2008 was decreed. Therefore, the defendants therein who are the petitioners herein have 4 CPKJ & CMR, J.
wp_6190_2019 filed appeal A.S.No.37 of 2012 on the file of Additional District Court, Amalapuram. During the pendency of the appeal, on the joint memo filed by both the parties to the appeal the matter was referred to Mandal Lok Adalat, Amalapuram, for settlement. Both the parties have filed the terms of compromise signed by both the parties and also their Advocates appearing for both the parties.
(b) As per the terms of compromise, the appellants who suffered the decree for eviction in O.S.No.39 of 2008 as defendants shall vacate the schedule premises by the end of January, 2019 and put the respondents/plaintiffs in possession of the said premises and withdraw the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.39 of 2008 and make it final; the owners of the premises agreed to relinquish the portion of arrears of rent of Rs.4,00,000/- out of the outstanding arrears of Rs.8,00,000/-; advance sum of Rs.2,25,000/- with the owners shall be adjusted towards part of the said Rs.4,00,000/- payable by the tenants and balance sum of Rs.1,75,000/- is to be paid by the tenants; a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by way of cash was paid by the tenants and the balance of Rs.75,000/- shall be paid on or before 31-01-2019 under valid receipt; the tenants should clear of all the electricity consumption charges and water consumption charges and produce clearance certificate at the time of vacating the premises; the tenants undertook not to make other claims in future and the time fixed for vacation is time 5 CPKJ & CMR, J.
wp_6190_2019 bound programme; and finally, the owners are at liberty to sell the schedule property to any third party after 31-01-2019 and the tenants shall not claim any pre-emption right by virtue of the lease deeds.
(c) Both the parties were present before the Mandal Lok Adalat, Amalapuram, along with their respective counsel representing them and they have signed the award containing the above terms and conditions and the Advocates of both the parties representing them also signed the award containing the above terms. Therefore, the Mandal Lok Adalat, Amalapuram, passed the impugned award dated 09-10-2018.
(d) The petitioners now contend in this writ petition that after going through the award passed by the Mandal Lok Adalat, Amalapuram, they noticed that it contains a term that they have to vacate the premises on or before 31-01-2019 and at that time they understood that they were misled and the award was obtained by playing fraud on them. They further contend that the Mandal Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute as the dispute is pending before the Additional District Court, Amalapuram, in A.S.No.37 of 2012 and as such the Mandal Lok Adalat is not competent to pass any such award in respect of a dispute pending in the Additional District Court. It is also contended that their signatures are obtained in a hurried manner and as such they have no time to verify the terms and conditions of 6 CPKJ & CMR, J.
wp_6190_2019 compromise. So they prayed to set aside the said award on the ground that it was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation and violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
3. Heard Sri G.Simhadri, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ravi Kumar Tolety, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.
4. As can be seen from the contentions raised by the petitioners in the writ petition, the award is being challenged on two principal grounds - (1) that the award was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation and violation of principles of natural justice and (2) since the appeal A.S.No.37 of 2012 which was referred for settlement by the Lok Adalat is pending in the Additional District Court, Amalapuram, that the Mandal Legal Services Authority which is inferior to Additional District Court is not competent to pass the award in respect of a dispute pending in the Additional District Court and as such it is contrary to mandatory provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
5. We have given our earnest consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.
6. The material facts that at the instance of both the parties to the dispute that the matter was referred to the Mandal Lok Adalat, Amalapuram, for settlement and that both the parties have signed the terms of compromise along 7 CPKJ & CMR, J.
wp_6190_2019 with their respective Advocates representing them and that both the parties have also signed the impugned award dated 09-10-2018 passed by the Mandal Legal Services Authority along with their Advocates are absolutely not in dispute. They are incontrovertible facts in this lis.
7. While admitting that the petitioners have signed the terms of the compromise along with their Advocates and also that they have signed the impugned award containing the terms of compromise along with their Advocates, the petitioners now seek to assail the said award on the ground that they have hurriedly signed the said terms of compromise and that they do not know the terms and conditions of the compromise and that they came to know that they have to vacate the premises in question by January, 2019 only subsequently after going through the award. In other words, it is their case that the award was obtained against them by playing fraud, misrepresentation and by violating the principles of natural justice.
8. It is really beyond our comprehension as to how the petitioners could plead that the award is vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice. It is only when no notice is given to the petitioners and when they are not allowed to participate in the proceedings of the Lok Adalat and when the award is passed by the Lok Adalat behind their back then it can be said that principles of natural justice are violated. The petitioners have admittedly signed the terms of 8 CPKJ & CMR, J.
wp_6190_2019 compromise and they have appeared before the Mandal Lok Adalat, Amalapuram and they have signed the award containing the said terms and conditions of compromise before the Members of Lok Adalat consisting of Judicial Member and also the other Members of the Lok Adalat and their Advocates also signed the award along with the petitioners. So, in the said circumstances, it cannot be said that there is any violation of principles of natural justice. Ample opportunity is given to the petitioners to participate in the proceedings before the Lok Adalat and they have appeared before the Lok Adalat and voluntarily signed the award containing the terms and conditions relating to the settlement and their Advocates also signed it. Therefore, the said contention that principles of natural justice are violated is absolutely devoid of any merit and it entails rejection.
9. Apropos the contention of the petitioners that fraud was played against them and the award was obtained by misrepresentation of facts to them, upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record, we have again no hesitation to hold that the said contention is also absolutely devoid of any merit. It is not the case of the petitioners that any force or coercion was used against them in obtaining their signatures. It is also not their case as can be seen from the lengthy Affidavit containing their contentions in this writ petition that they have signed the award under duress or that the terms of compromise signed 9 CPKJ & CMR, J.
wp_6190_2019 by them were not informed to them at the time of signing the said terms of compromise or that they are not aware of the said terms of compromise at the time of signing the award along with their Advocates. So it can safely be held that they are fully aware of the terms and conditions of the compromise which are signed by them. In fact, they have voluntarily signed the award containing the said terms of settlement and compromise. Therefore, it is to be held that with full knowledge of the terms of settlement that they have signed the award. So it cannot be said under any stretch of imagination or reasoning that fraud was played on them in obtaining the said award by misrepresenting the facts to them. In fact, the burden is heavy on the petitioners to establish the alleged fraud and misrepresentation pleaded by them. The said plea of fraud and misrepresentation are predominantly pure questions of fact which require evidence to prove the same. Except making a bald assertion in the petition that the award was obtained by playing fraud and misrepresentation and that they have hurriedly signed the award, absolutely no evidence is placed to substantiate the said plea of fraud and misrepresentation. The details of fraud and misrepresentation are not given to examine whether any fraud or misrepresentation is played on them. So in the absence of any material or any semblance of evidence, at least, prima facie to show that there is any element of fraud or 10 CPKJ & CMR, J.
wp_6190_2019 misrepresentation involved in passing the said award against them, the award cannot be set aside on the ground that it is vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation. The petitioners who have voluntarily signed the terms of compromise and settlement and the award containing the said terms of compromise and settlement are bound by the said award and they cannot seek to impeach the said award on untenable grounds not supported by any legal evidence.
10. As regards the competency of Mandal Lok Adalat to pass the award is concerned, it is the contention of the petitioners that since the suit was filed on the file of Senior Civil Judge's Court, Amalapuram, in O.S.No.39 of 2008 for eviction and since the appeal preferred by the petitioners in A.S.No.37 of 2012 is pending on the file of Additional District Court, Amalapuram, the dispute even on the request by both the parties cannot be referred to the Mandal Lok Adalat for settlement and to pass an award and the Mandal Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to pass the said award and it is not competent to pass the said award and as such it is not valid under law. In other words, the contention of the petitioners is that since the appeal is pending on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Amalapuram, the dispute is to be referred to District Lok Adalat only and the dispute cannot be referred to Mandal Lok Adalat. The said contention is also absolutely bereft of any merit.
11
CPKJ & CMR, J.
wp_6190_2019
11. As can be seen from the scheme of the Legal Services Authorities Act, the Act did not specify any pecuniary jurisdiction to the Lok Adalats for entertaining a dispute to arrive at a settlement between the parties in respect of a suit pending in any Court.
12. Section 11A, 11B and Clause (5) of Section 19 are relevant in the context to consider. They read thus:
"11A. Taluk Legal Services Committee.--(1) The State Authority may constitute a Committee, to be called the Taluk Legal Services Committee, for each taluk or mandal or for group of taluks or mandals.
(2) The Committee shall consist of--
(a) The Senior-most Judicial Officer operating within the jurisdiction of the Committee who shall be the ex officio Chairman; and
(b) such number of other members, possessing such experience and qualifications, as may be prescribed by the State Government, to be nominated by that Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court.
(3) The Committee may appoint such number of officers and other employees as may be prescribed by the State Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court for the efficient discharge of its functions.
(4) The officers and other employees of the Committee shall be entitled to such salary and allowances and shall be subject to such other conditions of service as may be prescribed by the State Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court.
(5) The administrative expenses of the Committee shall be defrayed out of the District Legal Aid Fund by the District Authority."
"11B. Functions of Taluk Legal Services Committee.-- The Taluk Legal Services Committee may perform all or any of the following functions, namely:--
(a) coordinate the activities of legal services in the taluk;12
CPKJ & CMR, J.
wp_6190_2019
(b) organize Lok Adalats within the taluk; and
(c) perform such other functions as the District Authority may assign to it."
"19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.--
(1) to (4) ........................................................... (5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of--
(i) any case pending before; or
(ii) any matter which is falling within the jurisdiction of, and is not brought before, any court for which the Lok Adalat is organised:
Provided that the Lok Adalat shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any case or matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law."
13. As can be seen from the above provisions, as per Section 11A, the State Authority may constitute a Committee called as Taluk Legal Services Committee for each taluk or mandal or for group of taluks or mandals and the said Committee shall consist of Senior-most Judicial Officer operating within the jurisdiction of the Committee who shall be the ex officio Chairman and such other members possessing experience and qualifications, as may be prescribed by the State Government.
14. Section 11B deals with functions of the Taluk/ Mandal Legal Services Committee. As per Clause (b) of Section 11B, it can organize Lok Adalats within the Taluk.
15. A conjoint reading of Section 11A, 11B and Clause (5) of Section 19 makes it manifest that the Mandal Legal Services Committee can organize Lok Adalat within the Mandal and shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive 13 CPKJ & CMR, J.
wp_6190_2019 at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of any case pending in any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised. The expression "any Court" is wide enough to include all Courts without any restriction. The Act did not specify any pecuniary jurisdiction. Section 11B(b) which deals with the functions of the Taluk Legal Services Committee shows that the Taluk Legal Services Committee can organise Lok Adalats within the taluk. So at best, only territorial limits are prescribed under the Act to entertain the dispute for settlement and compromise in the Lok Adalat. It is not the case of the petitioners that the property in dispute is not within the territorial limits of the mandal over which the Mandal Legal Services Committee got jurisdiction. Their case is only that since the appeal is pending in the District Court that the Mandal Legal Services Committee being inferior to the District Lok Adalat cannot entertain the said dispute. In this context, it is significant to note that the Mandal Lok Adalat in the present case was presided over by the II Additional District Judge who is the Senior-most Judicial Officer in the Mandal as Chairman of the said Committee. So, it is in absolute compliance with the mandate of Section 11A(2)(a) which envisages that a Senior-most Judicial Officer operating within the jurisdiction of the Committee shall be thee ex officio Chairman. Therefore, when the Mandal Lok Adalat, Amalapuram, was presided over by the Senior-most Judicial 14 CPKJ & CMR, J.
wp_6190_2019 Officer operating within the jurisdiction of the Mandal Legal Services Committee i.e. the II Additional District Judge, it cannot be said under any stretch of reasoning that the Mandal Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. So the impugned award is perfectly valid under law as it was passed by an Adalat having competent jurisdiction.
16. So none of the grounds urged by the petitioners to impeach the impugned award are sustainable under law. So the writ petition lacks merit and it deserves to be dismissed.
17. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
__________________________ C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, J.
_________________________________________ CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J.
08th November, 2019.
Note:-
L.R. Copy to be marked.
(B/o) Ak 15 CPKJ & CMR, J.
wp_6190_2019 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Writ Petition No.6190 of 2019 (per CMR, J.) 08th November, 2019.
(Ak)