APHC010257522025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH 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: 13370/2025 Between: 1. TANKALA MADHAVI, W/O. RAVINDRANATH TAGORE (LATE), AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO. 26-32-1, CHAITANYA NAGAR, GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH- 530026. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE LOK ADALAT BENCH, CONSTITUTED BY THE DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY, GAJUWAKA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN AND PRESIDING OFFICER 2. RAPETI VENKATA GOVINDA RAO ALIAS RAPED VENKATA GOVINDA RAO NAIDU, S/O. PARADESI NAIDU (LATE), AGED 55 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO.43-12-10, SRILEKHA APARTMENTS, SUBBALAKSHMI NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH - 530016. 3. PONAMALA SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. VENKATESWARA RAO (LATE), AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O. FLAT NO. 104, SAI TOWERS, ISPATNAGAR,GOLLAVANIPALEM, AGANAMPUDI, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH - 530026. 4. MARUBAKA ANURADHA, W/O. SIVA PRASAD (LATE), AGED 40 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO. 24-81-1/10, FLAT NO. 102, HARISH VICTORIA APARTMENT, SANATH NAGAR SLOKA SCHOOL, GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH - 530026. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.13370 of 2025 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to Award dated 16.03.2024 passed by the Respondent No. 1 in LAC No. 71/24 in OS No. 6 of 2024 on the file of Hon'ble XIII Additional Judge at Gajuwaka and consequently quash the said Award as the same is obtained by collusion, playing fraud, and misrepresented the facts by the Respondent 3 and 4 herein, and to 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 pleased to dispense with filing of certified copy of the Award dated 16.03.2024 passed by Respondent No. 1 in LAC No. 71/24 in OS No. 6 of 2024 on the file of Hon'ble X!l! Additional Judge at Gajuwaka, and/or pass IA NO: 2 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 pleased to suspend the operation of the Award dated 16.03.2024 passed by the Respondent No. 1 in LAC No. 71/24 in OS No. 6 of 2024 on the file of Hon'ble Xlll Additional Judge at Gajuwaka, pending disposal of writ petition, and proper in the circumstances of the case. IA NO: 3 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 vacate the interim order dated 24.09.2025 in LA. No. 02 of 2025 in W.P. No. 13370 of 2025,and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. LALAM SYAMANTHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KALEEMULLA S 2. S. LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY (SC FOR APSLSA) 3 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.13370 of 2025 The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner herein claims ownership over 400.44 Sq.Yds, in Gajuwaka Mandal of Visakhapatnam District. This land is said to have been purchased by her, on 24.08.2000, by way of two separate deeds of sale, for 200.22 Sq.Yds of land from Smt. Jaggapu Varalakshmi. The said Smt. Jaggapu Varalakshmi, in turn, purchased this land from Sri Gowri Sankar Rao, by way of registered deeds of sale, dated 13.08.1998. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the action of the 2nd respondent, who claimed title over the said land and had started interfering with her possession over the land, had approached the learned Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, by way of O.S.No.196 of 2005. This suit was allowed by the Trial Court, by a Judgment and decree, dated 08.05.2009. In this suit, the Trial Court had also given a finding on title and had given a decretal finding that the petitioner was the owner of the land. Aggrieved by this Judgment and decree, the 2nd respondent had approached the learned XIII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka, by way of A.S.No.67 of 2016. This appeal came to be dismissed on 23.02.2022. 2. The 2nd respondent, apart from filing the appeal, had also executed deeds of sale, transferring the property to the 3rd respondent. After such transfer, the 3rd respondent moved O.S.No.27 of 2016, before the learned XIII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka, for an 4 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.13370 of 2025 injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with the possession from the said land. This suit also came to be dismissed on 27.06.2022. 3. Thereafter, the 4th respondent moved O.S.No.6 of 2024 before the learned District Judge, Gajuwaka (it is not clear as to which District Judge). This suit was filed for specific performance of agreement of sale, under which the 3rd respondent is said to have agreed to sell the property to the 4th respondent. This suit, which was filed on 04.03.2024, was compromised and an award was passed by the Lok Adalat at Gajuwaka, on 16.03.2024. Under this award, the 3rd respondent was to receive a sum of Rs.46,00,000/- from the 4th respondent and thereafter a deed of sale was to be executed in favor of the 4th respondent. 4. The petitioner, having come to know of the said award, had approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Petition, challenging the said award. 5. Ms. L. Syamantha, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the flow of events, contained above, clearly show a case of willful suppression of fact and fraud committed on the Court. She would contend that, in such a situation, it would only be appropriate to set aside the award passed by the Lok Adalat. 6. Notices were served on respondents 2 to 4 and proof of service was filed, vide USR No.65981 of 2025, on 03.07.2025. Thereafter, 5 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.13370 of 2025 Sri S. Kaleemulla, learned counsel filed vakalat on behalf of the 4th respondent and filed his counter affidavit and his vacate stay application, on account of the stay granted earlier by this Court. There is no representation for respondents 2 & 3 despite service of notice. 7. Sri S. Kaleemulla, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent would contend that the Writ Petition itself is not maintainable on account of the Judgment of a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in the case of Batchu Subba Lakshmi and Others vs. Sannidhi Srinivasulu and Others1. The learned counsel would rely upon Paragraph No.8 of the Judgment, which reads as follows: The parties to the compromise or settlement, which is the basis for award of Lok Adalat, no doubt entitled to challenge the award on any of the grounds referred to herein above grounds. Ordinarily, a third party cannot challenge the award in a writ petition even if such award causes prejudice. The remedy of such party would be to institute a separate suit or proceeding for necessary redressal and seek appropriate decree of declaration by filing a suit within the period of limitation prescribed under law. Under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, any person entitled to legal character or any right as to any property, may file a suit for declaration. Under this provision, any person can even institute a suit for declaration that the decree passed by Civil Court in an earlier suit is not binding on him. When a civil 1 (2010) 1 ALT 483 : (2010) 1 ALD 277 6 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.13370 of 2025 Court can even declare that an earlier decree of the Court is not binding on the party before it, we do not see any objection for a third party to institute a suit in a civil Court seeking a declaration that the award of Lok Adalat is not binding on him/her subject to the law of limitation. We however hasten to add that there may be extraordinary cases where a third party is meted with injustice at the behest of two or more conniving and colluding parties, who may have obtained an award of Lok Adalat by fraud or misrepresentation only to defeat the rights of such third party. In such cases within a reasonable period such third party may maintain a writ petition. But in such cases, there should be prima facie evidence of fraud or misrepresentation or collusion in obtaining the award of Lok Adalat. Even if such allegations are made and the question involves complicated questions of fact requiring voluminous evidence, third party should be left to seek remedy in a civil Court rather than preferring extraordinary remedy under Article 226 of Constitution. 8. The learned counsel would contend that the Division Bench had given a categorical finding that a third party to an award, passed by the Lok Adalat, can challenge the award only by a civil suit and the same cannot be challenged by way of a Writ Petition. The learned counsel would also contend that even if a Writ Petition is moved, the same would be maintainable only where no evidence is required to be taken and a clear case of misrepresentation and fraud is made out. The learned counsel would submit that no such case of misrepresentation or fraud had been made out before this 7 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.13370 of 2025 Court. He had occasion to go through the flow of title in respect of respondents 2 & 3 to demonstrate that the petitioner does not have any title to the land in question and that the ownership of respondents 2 & 3 and subsequently to the 4th respondent, cannot be disputed. He would contend that the title of the petitioner is traced to one Sri Gowri Sankar Rao, whose land had been acquired by VUDA, for road widening and that he never had the extent of land which is said to have been sold to the petitioner. 9. A perusal of Paragraph No.8 of the Judgment cited above would show that the Division Bench had not placed any absolute bar on a third party approaching this Court, by way of a Writ Petition. The Division Bench had only pointed the contours within which such a Writ Petition can be filed. In fact, the Division Bench had held that a Writ Petition would be maintainable, where a clear case of fraud or suppression of fact is made out. 10. In the present case, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent would contend that a perusal of the flow of title, as made out in the various documents produced by the 4th respondent, are sufficient to dismiss the Writ Petition as only the appropriate remedy for the petitioner would be to file a suit where question of title can be gone into. 11. This Court is unable to accept this contention in view of the categorical finding of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, in O.S.No.196 of 2005, that the petitioner is the owner of the land. Further, this 8 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.13370 of 2025 view has been affirmed by the subsequent dismissal of the appeal filed against the judgment of the learned XIII Additional District Judge, in O.S.No.67 of 2016. Apart from this, the 3rd respondent, who was fully aware of the earlier round of litigation between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, who is his vendor, had again ventured to file O.S.No.27 of 2016, which came to be dismissed. Though the dismissal may have been on account of non-prosecution, the fact remains that the 3rd respondent was fully aware of the finding given against the 2nd respondent in the earlier round of litigation and has suppressed this fact before the Lok Adalat. 12. Another issue that comes up for consideration by this Court is the fact that the suit is filed on 04.03.2024 and the matter is compromised and the Lok Adalat award is passed on 16.03.2024. These circumstances make it amply clear that respondents 3 & 4, with a view to get over the earlier orders of the Court, appear to have come up with the device of entering into a compromise, for creating a right in favour of the 4th respondent. 13. This Court has no hesitation in holding that it is a case of suppression and fraud perpetrated on the Court. Further, it would be necessary to set aside the award obtained by respondents 3 & 4, as continuance of any such award would be a clear miscarriage of justice. 14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the award, dated 16.03.2024, passed by the Lok Adalat Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, 9 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.13370 of 2025 constituted by the Mandal Legal Services Authority, Gajuwaka, in L.A.C.No.71 of 2024 in O.S.No.6 of 2024. However, this would not preclude the respondents from exercising the rights under law. 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: 27.10.2025 MJA 10 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.13370 of 2025 330 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 13370/2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) 27.10.2025 MJA