- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4268 WP No. 103518 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 103518 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SHIVAYYA MAHALINGAYYA SUNDOLLI, AGE. 87 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MUDALAGI, TQ. MUDALAGI, DSIT. BELAGAVI. 2. SMT. BASAVVA MAHALINGAYYA SUNADOLLI, AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MUDALAGI, TQ. MUDALAGI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 3. SMT. ANNAWWA W/O MAHALINGAYYA SUNADOLLI, AGE. 92 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MUDALAGI, TQ. MUDALAGI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 4. BASAYYA S/O MAHALINGAYYA SUNADOLLI, AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MUDALAGI, TQ. MUDALAGI, DIST. BELAGAVI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHRIHARSHA.A.NEELOPANT., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. GANGAWWA W/O MALLAYYA MATHAD, AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. BORANATTI, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI. Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4268 WP No. 103518 of 2021 2. 2(A) 2(B) 2(C) 2(D) BASAYYA SANGAYYA MATHAD, AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. BORANATTI, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI. SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S. SMT. PARAVVA W/O BASAYYA MATHAD, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD, R/O. HOSATTI, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI. SHIVAYYA S/O BASAYYA MATHAD, AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. HOSATTI, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI. SANGEETA D/O BASAYYA MATHAD, AGE: 11 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: HOSATTI, TQ:MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI. SAVITA D/O BASAYYA MATHAD, AGE: 10 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. HOSATTI, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. GURUPADAYYA NINGAYYA HIREMATH, AGE. 78 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, BORANATTI, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI. 4. UMADEVI BALAYYA NIRWANI, AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MUDALAGI, TQ. MUDALAGI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 5. SAVAKKA KALLAYYA KATTI AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MANGALWARPETH, BANNATTI, TQ. RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST. BAGALAKOTE. 6. SHASHIKANTAYYA MAHALINGAYYA SUNADOLLI @ SHASHIKANTAYYA GURULINGAYYA HIREMATH, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4268 WP No. 103518 of 2021 AGE. 80 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MUDALAGI, TQ. MUDALAGI, DIST. BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHETAN.T.LIMBIKAI., ADVOCATE FOR R1 R2(A), R3 & R5; R2(B-D) ARE MINORS AND REPRESENTED BY R2(A); R4 & 6-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Shriharsh A.Neelopant., counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Chetan T.Limbikai., counsel for respondents 1, 2(A), 3 & 5 have appeared in person. Emergent notice to the respondents was ordered on 24.09.2021. A perusal of the office note depicts that respondents 4 & 6 are served and unrepresented. Respondents 4 & 6 have neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person. 2. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated:07.02.2004 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4268 WP No. 103518 of 2021 passed by the Judicial Conciliator/Taluka Legal Services Authority Gokak in O.S. No.161/1988 vide Annexure-A. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status and rankings before the Trial Court. 4. The plaintiffs filed a suit on the file of the Principal Munsif, Gokak in O.S.No.161/1988 seeking the relief for declaration and consequential relief of injunction. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 26.06.1991 decreed the suit. An appeal was preferred before the Appellate Court in R.A. No.59/1991. The Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 23.09.1992 set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and remanded the matter to the Trial Court. The remand order was questioned before this Court by filing a Miscellaneous Second Appeal. The second appeal was dismissed. After remand, counsel who represented the plaintiff filed a memo stating that there was a settlement between the parties to the lis; the plaintiff is not interested in proceeding with the suit and that he would withdraw the suit. The matter was referred to the Lok Adalat. Taking note of the memo that - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4268 WP No. 103518 of 2021 was filed by the counsel for the plaintiffs, the Lok Adalat vide order dated 07.02.2004, disposed of the suit as compromised. Under these circumstances, the captioned writ petition is filed on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of writ petition. 5. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Sri.Shirharsh A.Neelopant., counsel for the petitioners in presenting his arguments vehemently contends that the plaintiffs have not received any amount and they have not signed any compromise petition. Counsel submitted that the plaintiffs were not aware of the memo that was filed by their counsel. It is also contended that they have not given any instructions to their Advocate to file the memo. He argued by saying that the proceedings before the Lok Adalath are contrary to Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Counsel, therefore, submits that the order passed by the Lok Adalat may be set aside and the writ petition may be allowed. Sri.Chetan T.Limbikai., counsel for respondents 1, 2(A), 3 and 5 submits that an appropriate order may be passed. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4268 WP No. 103518 of 2021 6. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 7. The facts are sufficiently stated and they do not require reiteration. The issue revolves around a narrow compass and relates to the order passed by Lok Adalat. In the present case, the counsel who represented the plaintiffs filed a memo stating that the matter is compromised and the plaintiffs are not interested in prosecuting the suit. The memo is furnished along with the writ petition and the same is marked as Annexure-E. A perusal of the same would reflect that a counsel by the name Sri.M.G.Solapuramata., has signed the memo and it is dated 07.02.2004. The contents of the memo read as under: ! " # !$ %&'(! $) * + , - ! . . *! / % + ! .$) 0 1& 2 8. It is significant to note that the parties to the lis have not signed the memo and the order sheet. The order of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4268 WP No. 103518 of 2021 the Lok Adalat is also furnished along with the writ petition and the same is marked at Annexure-A. The Lok Adalat on 07.02.2004 disposed of the suit as compromised based on the memo that was filed by the counsel for the plaintiffs. A perusal of Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 makes it very clear that the presence of the parties and principles of natural justice must be adhered to. Section 20 contains as many as 7 sub-clauses. In my view, the Presiding Officer and the Conciliator have not adhered to Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Furthermore, there is no compromise petition and the parties have not signed the memo. Hence, the Lok Adalat could not have proceeded with the matter. Hence, the order cannot be sustained. Therefore, it is required to be quashed and accordingly, it is quashed. 9. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order dated 07.02.2004 passed by the Judicial Conciliator/ Taluka Legal Services Authority Gokak in O.S. No.161/1988 vide Annexure- A is quashed. 10. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4268 WP No. 103518 of 2021 11. Because of the quashing of the order passed by Lok Adalat, the suit is restored to the original file. Since the parties are represented by their respective counsel, they are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 07.04.2025. Because of disposal of the Writ Petition, all pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of and the interim order if any granted by this Court stands discharged. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP,RH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60