APHC010120922024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] MONDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 6351/2024 Between: 1. SHAIK SHAHEEN, W/O LATE MAHABOOB SUBHANI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O D.NO.6-393, MANTENA VENKATARAJUPALEM, KARLAPALEM MANDAL, GUNTUR DIST ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. SHAIK BAJI BABA, S/O IBRAHIM, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. BUSINESS, R/O D.NO.4/19, K.K.TOWERS, BRODIPET, GUNTUR. 3. SHAIK IBRAHIM, S/O ABDUL KHADER, AGED 75 YEARS, R/O D.NO.6-393, MANTHENA VENKATARAJUPALEM, KARLAPALEM MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. PATHAN AMEERUN, W/O SHABBIR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O D.NO.6-393, MANTHENA VENKATARAJUPALEM, KARLAPALEM MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 5. SHAIK KARIMOON, W/O SHAIK MIYA SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. HOUSEWIFE, R/O D.NO.6-393, MANTHENA VENKATARAJUPALEM, KARLAPALEM MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 6. SHAIK HASIBUNNISA, W/O KHADER MOHIUDDIN, AGED 46 YEARS. HOUSEWIFE, R/O NEAR RAILWAY STATION, MODUKURU 2 VILLAGE, TSUNDUR MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 1st respondent in passing the Compromise Award dt 28-08-2019 in Lok Adalat Case No. 1169 of 2019 in O.S.No.153 of 2016 on the file of I Additional District Judges Court, Guntur without taking neither consent nor their signature of the petitioner as well as the 4th to 6th respondents herein is illegal, arbitrary, capricious and violative articles 14, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India and also contrary to Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. Consequently, set aside the Compromise Award dt 28-08-2019 passed in Lok Adalat as unsustainable under law and contrary to the provisions of Legal Services Authrity Act, 1987 and to pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 suspend the operation of the Compromise Award dt: 28- 08-2019 passed in Lok Adalat Case No.ll69 of 2019 in O.S.No.l53 of 2016 on the file of I Additional District Judges' Court, Guntur pending disposal of main writ petition and to pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N A RAMACHANDRA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. BALA RAMA MURTHY THUMU 2. S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY 3 The Court made the following ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao) The 2nd respondent herein, who is the brother of the late husband of the petitioner herein, had moved O.S.No.153 of 2016 before the I Additional District Judge, Guntur for declaration of title and a consequential permanent injunction in relation to five items of immovable property. The suit was filed against his father, who is the 3rd respondent herein, his sisters, who are arrayed as respondents 4 to 6 herein and his sister-in-law, the petitioner herein, who was arrayed as the 2nd defendant in the suit. After filing of the suit, the 2nd respondent herein along with 3rd respondent compromised the suit between themselves and the same was recorded as a compromise Award, dated 28.08.2019 in Lok Adalat Case No.1196 of 2019 by the 1st respondent herein. The said Award, which is placed before this Court, also records that the 2nd respondent herein, as plaintiff in the suit, had filed a memo stating that he was not pressing the suit against the defendants 2 to 5. As stated above, the 2nd defendant in the suit is the petitioner herein. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition, contending that she is in possession of item No.1 of the suit schedule property and that the respondents 2 and 3 are seeking to dispossess her by way of E.P.No.54 of 2022 filed before the I Additional District Judge, Guntur. It is the case of the petitioner that the entire exercise was carried out behind her back and that the respondents, under the guise of the Award, dated 28.08.2019 had initiated E.P.No.54 of 2022 for the purpose of evicting the petitioner from the house property which is in her possession. 4 3. Sri N.A.Ramachandra Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the suit was initially filed for declaration and permanent injunction, on the ground that the 2nd respondent was in possession of the said property. However, in the compromise memo and the Award proceedings, the 3rd respondent, who is the father of the 2nd respondent, and the 2nd respondent herein agreed for the property to be handed over by the 3rd respondent to the 2nd respondent. On the basis of this undertaking recorded in the Award, the respondents are trying to evict the petitioner by filing E.P.No.54 of 2022. Learned counsel would contend that the entire exercise is a mala fide exercise carried out to damage the interests of the petitioner and the entire exercise is an abuse of the process of the Court. 4. Sri Bala Rama Murthy Thumu, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, while reiterating the averments in the counter-affidavit, would submit that the petitioner had already been allotted item No.4 of the schedule property and that she had forcibly entered into the premises at the time when the property was handed over to the 2nd respondent, by the Ameen of the Court and that the present writ petition has been filed only to harass the 2nd respondent. 5. This Court without going into the aforesaid issues, is of the opinion that the present writ petition can be disposed of on the simple ground that the writ petitioner is not a party to the said Award. In such circumstances, an execution petition, cannot be filed to dispossess the writ petitioner, from the property in her possession, on the ground that there is a decree against the 5 3rd respondent herein. Any execution petition filed by the 2nd respondent can only be pursued against the 3rd respondent and the same cannot be a ground for evicting the petitioner, if she is in possession of the said property. 6. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to file any execution petition, against the petitioner herein or prosecute any E.P against her on the basis of the Award, dated 28.09.2019 in Lok Adalat Case No.1169 of 2019. It would be open to the respondents to undertake any other proceedings, in accordance with law, if they are aggrieved by the occupation of the property by the petitioner herein. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J ________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J Date: 01.12.2025 KA 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 6351/2024 Date: 01.12.2025 KA