1 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.19072 of 2025 APHC010373992025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 19072/2025 Between: 1. DINDUKURTHI RAMPRASAD,, S/O D. RAMAEHANDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O D.NO.40 - 8 - C, VIDYA NAGAR, KUMOOL CITY, KUMOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. LOK ADALAT BENCH, DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICE AUTHORITY, KUMOOL DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX, KUMOOL CITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. V PRADEEP KUMAR, S/O LATE V. A. PATEL, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC - BUSINESS, R/O H.NO. 19/21 - H, BANDIMETTA STREET, KUMOOL CITY, KUMOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...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 tomay be pleased to issue a Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the Award passed in P.L.No.3030 of 2015, dated 04-08-2015 passed by Respondent No 1 is unenforceable, in executable. arbitrary, unjust, violative of Principles of Natural Justice, violative of the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India, and consequently quash 2 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.19072 of 2025 all further proceedings initiated in pursuance of the Award passed in P.L. Case No.3030 of 2015, dated 04-08-2015 passed by Respondent No 1 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 stay of all further proceedings in E.P.No.2 of 2019 in PL Case 3030 of 2015 on the file of Principal District Court, Kurnool and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VIVEKANANDA VIRUPAKSHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY SC FOR APSLSA 2. LAKSHMIKANTH REDDY DESAI The Court made the following order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Heard Sri VirupakshaDattatreya Gowda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Vivekananda Virupaksha, leaned counsel for the petitioner and Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Lakshmikanth Reddy Desai, learned counsel for respondents No.2. 2. The case of the petitioner is – a) The petitioner had approached the 2nd respondent, for a loan of Rs.40 lakhs. This amount was received by the petitioner. Prior to this money being handed over, the 2nd respondent had taken the petitioner to his advocate and got the signatures of the petitioner on certain documents. Later the petitioner was taken to the Lok-Adalat, by the 2nd respondent, and an award was obtained in the said Lok-Adalat showing as if the petitioner had agreed to sell 3 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.19072 of 2025 his immovable property to the 2nd respondent. The petitioner had accepted the said award as he had been assured by the 2nd respondent that the said award would be torn up when the petitioner returns the money which has been obtained, as a loan, from the 2nd respondent. b) The petitioner received notices in E.P.No.1443 of 2017 and approached an advocate, who informed him that an award had been passed stating that the petitioner had received an amount of Rs.49 lakhs as sale consideration for selling his property in Plot No.35, in Sy.No.519, APIIC Industrial Estate, Kurnool City Municipal Corporation along with shed and machinery, situated in the said land for a sale consideration of Rs.50 lakhs. The petitioner was also informed by his advocate that the award which was initially passed had been amended, by orders in Petition No.42, dated 29.01.2016, as though the petitioner had appeared and consented for such amendment. c) The petitioner had informed his advocate that he had never agreed to sell the property and that he had not appeared on 29.01.2016, before the Lok-Adalat, when the amendment is said to have been carried out. The petitioner also took the contention, before the Executing Court, that the award as amended is contrary to law as it is materially altered and unenforceable. Subsequently, E.P.No.1443 of 2017 came to be dismissed for default on 17.09.2019. 4 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.19072 of 2025 d) The 2nd respondent again filed E.P.No.2 of 2019 before the Principal District Judge, Kurnool. The petitioner filed his counter affidavit and also gave evidence in E.P.No.2 of 2019. Thereafter, the Principal District Judge is said to have passed orders, on 03.02.2025, directing the 2nd respondent to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakhs within a period of one month after which the petitioner was to execute the sale deed. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner moved this Court, by way of C.R.P.No.583 of 2025 which came to be dismissed on 17.04.2025. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide S.L.P.No.17817 of 2025. The petitioner withdrew the S.L.P with liberty to take recourse to such remedies as or otherwise available in accordance with law. The S.L.P was dismissed with leave on 17.07.2025. e) The petitioner has now filed the present Writ Petition impounding the validity of the award in P.L.C.No.3030 of 2015 passed on 04.08.2015. 3. The petitioner assails the award, dated 04.08.2015, on the following grounds: i) The petitioner was misled and deceived into consenting for an award, dated 04.08.2015.As the award was based on such deception, the award would have to be set aside. ii) After the award had been passed on 04.08.2015, an application was made for amending the award. The Secretary to the Lok Adalat passed a docket order on 29.01.2016, recording the presence of the petitioner and the 5 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.19072 of 2025 alleged statement of the petitioner that he was consenting for such amendment. The petitioner had not appeared before the Lok-Adalat on 29.01.2016 nor did the petitioner give any consent for any such amendment. Accordingly, the order passed by the Secretary of the Lok-Adalat, without the consent of the petitioner would have to be set-aside. iii) The award had been passed by the Lok-Adalat and not by the Secretary to the Lok-Adalat. The Secretary to the Lok-Adalat does not have any power or jurisdiction to amend any award, by way of a docket order or any other kind of order as only the Lok-Adalat could have made any amendments, provided such amendments are in accordance with law. iv) The 2nd respondent claims to have paid Rs.9 lakhs on 25.07.2015 that is between the date of presentation of the Pre Litigation Case (dt:10.06.2015) and the date of award (dt:04.08.2015) and that Rs.1 lakh remains unpaid by the time of the award. This is clearly contradicted by the petition presented by the 2nd respondent, to the District Legal Services Authority on 10.06.2015 in which only a sum of Rs.40 lakhs is said to have been paid to the petitioner. The petitioner would contend that these discrepancies and the other discrepancies clearly make out a case of manipulation and fraud committed on the petitioner. v) The petitioner would also contend that the subsequent conduct of the 2ndrespondent in creating a false receipt, dated 20.08.2016, for showing payment of Rs.1 lakhs also makes it clear that the entire chain of events are 6 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.19072 of 2025 the manipulations of the 2ndrespondent who cannot be permitted to benefit from such manipulations and illegal acts. vi) The value of the property even according to the Registration department was Rs.1,11,11,000/- as noted in the registered partition deed,dated 17.11.2014.In such circumstances, the preponderance of possibilities is that nobody would have sold a property worth Rs.1,11,11,000/-, even according to the basic value register, for Rs.50 lakhs. 4. Sri Virupaksha Dattatreya Gowda, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in Jagjiwan Rai and Ors. Vs. Kari Kunwar Rai and Ors1, judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in Sanjay Kumar and Ors. Vs. Secretary, City Civil Court Legal Services Authority and Ors.,2. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in LoonkaranSethiya and Ors. Vs. Ivan E. John and Ors.3 5. Sri S. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel, for the Lok-Adalat, placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in MrinmoyMaity vs ChhandaKoley and Ors 4 , PathapatiSubba Reddy (Died) by L.Rs. &Ors vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA)5. The full bench judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in P.V. 1 MANU/UP/0325/1974 2 2010(3) ALD 330: 2010(3) ALT 289 3 AIR 1977 SC 336 4 (2024) 4 SCR 506 5 (2024) 4 SCR 241. 7 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.19072 of 2025 Narayana vs. APSRTC, Hyderabad.,6 and judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dowlath Bee and Ors. Vs. T. Mahaboob Basha and Ors., dated 31.07.2024 in W.P.No.13558 of 2023. 6. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel, on the other hand, would contend that the petitioner was fully aware of the award, dated 04.08.2015, and chose to remain silent about the said award till E.P.No.1443 of 2017 came to be filed. It is only at that stage, that the petitioner started disputing the award. Thereafter, the petitioner did not take any steps to challenge the award till the present writ petition has been filed in the year 2025. He would contend that the present writ petition is hit by laches and requires to be dismissed on this short ground. 7. The learned Senior Counsel would also contend that the petitioner does not dispute his signatures on the terms of settlement, or the award. He would submit that insuch circumstances, the application of fraud or deception would have to be specifically pleaded and proved to the satisfaction of the Court. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that the petitioner, except making a statement that he was misled into signing the terms of compromise and the award, has not placed any material before this Court to demonstrate such a fact. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that in such circumstances, the question of setting aside the award would not arise. He submits that the scope of a challenge to an award, passed by the Lok- 6 2013 (4) ALD 386 (FB) 8 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.19072 of 2025 Adalat, is extremely restricted and an award cannot be set aside merely on the contention of the judgment debtor that he was made to sign papers without understanding the import of these papers. 8. An agreement of sale, is said to have been executed between the petitioner and the 2ndrespondent, for a sum of Rs.50 lakhs, for sale of the property which has been mentioned above. This agreement of sale contains the signature of the petitioner herein. Further, an endorsement of receipt of Rs.2 lakhs, signed by the petitioner is also available on the said document. 9. The proceedings before the Lok-Adalat, Kurnool commenced with the petition filed by the 2nd respondent on 10.06.2015. This petition is signed only by the 2ndrespondent and his counsel. Thereafter, the petition was taken up as P.L.3030 of 2015. The terms of compromise were filed before the Lok- Adalat on 04.08.2015. The said terms of compromise contains the signatures of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent as well as the counsel of the 2ndrespondent. An award was passed, on the basis of the terms of compromise, on 04.08.2015 itself. This award contains signatures of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent and the signature of the advocate of the 2nd respondent apart from the signatures of the members of the Lok-Adalat bench. 10. In the award, it is stated that the petitioner had agreed to sell the petition schedule property, which is already described above, to the 2nd respondent for Rs.50 lakhs and had received a sum of Rs.38 lakhs from the 9 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.19072 of 2025 petitioner on 13.05.2015. Paragraph No.3 of the award states that the respondent also received a sum of Rs.2 lakhs from the petitioner on 08.06.2015 and that the part payments were endorsed on the reverse of the agreement of sale dated 13.05.2015. Further, the 2nd respondent had agreed to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.1 lakhs to the respondent at the time of the registration of the sale deed in favour of the 2nd respondent or his order. 11. Thereafter, an application is said to have been filed before the District Legal Services Authority for correction of a typical mistake for inclusion of the receipt of Rs.9 lakhs, on 25.07.2015, in paragraph No.3 of the award. The Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, on 29.01.2016, passed the following docket order: “Both parties present. Respondent reported no objection to amend award since it is Typographical error accordingly allowed. Amendment is permitted as prayed for since it is already there in the Term of Compromise.” 12. Paragraph No.2 of the terms of compromise contains a statement that the petitioner had received Rs.9 lakhs on 25.07.2015. 13. This docket order as well as the amendment to the award by incorporating “also received Rs.9,00,000/- ( Nine lacks) on 25.07.2015” are denied and disputed by the petitioner. The petitioner contends that he was not present before the District Legal Services Authority on 29.01.2016 and the statement recorded by the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority that the 10 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.19072 of 2025 petitioner was present is false. The petitioner also assails the inclusion of that line on the ground that the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority is not empowered under any provision to make such unilateral correction in the award. The petitioner also assails the note written in hand by the Secretary, stating that the award in paragraph No.3, in the second line, is amended as per Petition No.42 of 2016 vide orders, dated 29.01.2016. 14. Sri Virupaksha Dattatreya Gowda, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that this amendment is clearly beyond the jurisdiction of the Secretary. Consideration of the Court: 15. The organization of Lok Adalats and their functioning are regulated by chapter VI of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section 19 of the Act stipulates that a Lok Adalat organized for an area, shall consist of retired or serving judicial officers and such other number of persons, as may be specified, by the State authority or District authority or the Supreme Court/High Court/ Taluk level Legal Services Committee, that is organizing the Lok Adalat. Section 20 sets out the procedure to be followed by a Lok Adalat. Section 21 gives the award of a Lok Adalat, the status of a Court Decree. 16. In view of the above provisions, it is only the Lok Adalat which can issue an award, on the basis of the settlement between the parties. The Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority is not part of the Lok Adalat. 11 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.19072 of 2025 In any event, the petitioner had already raised these issues, before the learned single judge, in C.R.P. No. 583 of 2025. The learned single judge held that the modification of the award, by the Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority, was without jurisdiction. We are in agreement with this view of the learned single judge, which has become binding on the respondent also. Accordingly, the order dated 29.01.2016, in Petition No. 42 of 2016 is set aside. However, the striking down of the order of the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, would not impinge on the validity of the Award. As pointed out by the learned single judge, the payment of Rs. 9,00,000/- was recorded in the terms of Compromise and the non inclusion of the said recital, in the award, would not make any difference, to the terms of the Award. 17. The petitioner does not dispute that he had signed the terms of compromise, dated 04.08.2015, on the basis of which the impugned award, dated 04.08.2015 was passed. The petitioner also does not dispute his signature, on the impugned award, dated 04.08.2015. He contends that he was misled into signing the documents and that the subsequent manipulations, of the respondent, proves his claim of being cheated by the respondent. 18. The case sought to be made out by the petitioner, regarding the subsequent manipulations, in the present petition, has been urged before the learned single judge, who had rejected the same. This order of the learned single judge has become final, as the petitioner, withdrew the Special Leave 12 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.19072 of 2025 Petition, challenging the said order. The judgments cited by the petitioner, before us, were also cited before the learned single judge, who passed the order in C.R.P. No. 583 of 2025. 19. A further issue raised by the Respondent, was the question of laches. The petitioner, was aware of the terms of the award, as he had signed the award, in 2015 itself. Even if his contention, that he was unaware of the terms of the award, is to be accepted, he was definitely aware of the terms of the award, when he received notice of E.P.No. 1443 of 2017. Yet he chose to challenge, the award, only in 2025, after he was unsuccessful in disputing the executability of the award. The learned counsel sought to rely on the judgments, cited above, to contend that the issue of laches would not shut out judicial review. There is no dispute with this proposition. However, the very same judgments have also observed that the issue of laches would have to be dealt with carefully and on the facts of each case. In the present case, the facts make it clear that the petitioner, did not choose to challenge the award, for about seven years, after he came to know of the award. The present writ petition is clearly hit by laches and requires to be dismissed on this ground also. 20. In such circumstances, nothing further survives in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 13 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.19072 of 2025 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO,J _______________ T.C.D.SEKHAR,J RJS 14 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.19072 of 2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 19072/2025 26.09.2025 RJS