Jagdish Prasad vs Sangamlal and Others

Alok Aradhe, J.—In this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has assailed the validity of the award dated 28.9.2003 passed in Civil Appeal No.22-A/2001 by Lok Adalat as well as order dated 31.7.2005 by which application for review filed by the petitioner has been rejected.

The petitioner had filed a civil suit, namely. Civil Suit No.245-A/l 998 against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and their father, namely, Ramkumar seeking relief of declaration, injunction and possession. The suit filed by the petitioner was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 23.7.2001 by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decree, the respondents No.1 to 3 and aforesaid Ramkumar preferred an appeal which was registered as Civil Appeal No.22-A/2009. An application for compromise was filed before the appellate Court by the parties. On the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties, an award was passed by Lok Adalat on 28.9.2003. The petitioner later learnt that land allotted to petitioner under award belongs to other persons who are not parties to the proceedings and the lands allotted to the petitioner under the award have already been sold by respondents vide registered sale-deeds. The petitioner thereupon filed an application for review which was rejected by the Lok Adalat on 31.7.2005 on the ground that it has no power to review its order. In the aforesaid backdrop, the petitioner has approached this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Lok Adalat ought to have made an inquiry before passing an award. It was further submitted that neither any inquiry was made nor any statement of witnesses were recorded with regard to genuineness of the compromise arrived at between the parties. The Lok Adalat ought to have satisfied itself that compromise is fair and legal. In support of his submissions learned counsel for petitioner has relief on decisions reported in 2009 (1) MPLJ 495, 2005 SAR 723 and order dated 15.12.2009 passed in Writ Petition 13577/2005.

On the other hand, Shri M.L. Choubey, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submitted that petitioner is under an obligation to plead and prove particulars of fraud. In the plaint itself the petitioner has mentioned the details of the land, which include the land allotted to him under the award. It is not the case of the petitioner that his signature on the application for compromise was obtained by playing fraud. It is also pointed out that petitioner has averred that since he was illiterate, therefore he accepted to the suggestion for compromise. The Lok Adalat while passing the award is not required to make any enquiry. The respondent No. 4 during pendency of the writ petition has died, instead of brining on record his legal representatives, the name of respondent No.4 has been deleted, therefore, the writ petition has abated. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions reported in Kalabharati Advertising Vs. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania and Others, , Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and Others, and State of Punjab and Another Vs. Jalour Singh and Others,

I have considered the submissions made on both sides. It is well settled in law that Lok Adalats have no adjudicatory or judicial functions. Their functions relate purely to conciliation. A Lok Adalat determines the reference on the basis of a compromise or settlement between the parties and puts it seal of confirmation by making the award in terms of compromise. It is equally well settled legal proposition that if any party wants to challenge the award based on settlement, the same can be examined in a writ petition under Article 226 and/or 227 on very limited grounds. [See: Jalour Singh and others (supra)]. In Kiran Singh and Others Vs. Chaman Paswan and Others, it has been held that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the Court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law and it''s invalidity can be challenged even in collateral proceedings. Similar view has been taken in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and others, and in AIR 2008 SCW 6654. Though the award of a Lok Adalat is not a result of a contest on merits, just as a regular suit by a Court in a regular trial is, however it is as equal and on par with a decree on compromise and will have same binding effect and be conclusive [See: P.T. Thomas vs. Thomas Job, (2005) 6 SCC 4781 . It is trite law that validity of a compromise decree can be challenged on the ground that it was obtained by playing fraud. [See: A.A. Gopalakrishnan Vs. Cochin Devaswom Board and Others, . Since the award passed by the Lok Adalat is akin to a compromise decree, its validity can be challenged by a party in a writ petition on the ground that the same has been obtained by playing fraud. "Fraud" means and includes any of the following acts committed by a party to a contract, or with his connivance, or by his agent, with intent to deceive another party thereto or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the contract:- (1) the suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true by one who does not believe it to be true; (2) the active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact; (3) a promise made without intention of performing it; (4) any other act fitted to deceive; (5) any such act or omission as the law specially declares to be fraudulent. [See: Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar, Third Edition Reprint 2007].;

Now the facts of the case may be seen. Admittedly, petitioner is an illiterate person and a decree was passed by which claim of the petitioner was decreed, and it was held that petitioner has l/6th share in the suit lands. During the pendency of appeal, an application for compromise was filed on the basis of which award was passed by Lok Adalat. In para 5.7 of the writ petition the petitioner has averred that he was allotted land bearing Khasra No. 106 and 345 situate at village Kiniyakala and land bearing Khasra No. 389 admeasuring 0.94 acres at village Kuthila. In para 5.8 of the petition the petitioner has averred that lands allotted to him under the award belong to Devlal Singh and Rajaram who are in possession of land for past more than 40 years. The lands allotted to petitioner were sold by registered sale deeds by the respondents. The copies of sale deeds have been filed as Annexures-P-5 to P-7. In para 5.11 of the writ petition the petitioner has also stated that though aforesaid lands were mentioned in the plaint as well as in decree of the trial Court, however, the fact that lands have already been sold as not known to the petitioner. The plaint was prepared on the basis of revenue records of the year 1958-59. Thus, from the averments made in the writ petition, referred to supra, it is graphically clear that under the award the lands were allotted to petitioner which were already sold and were in possession of third parties.

It is pertinent to mention here that there is no denial on behalf of respondents in the return that land allotted to petitioner under the award are in possession of third parties and have already been sold vide sale-deeds Annexures-P-5 to P-7. It is well settled proposition of law that an averment of fact which is not denied is deemed to be admitted. [See: Smt. Naseem Bano Vs. State of U.P. and others, . The respondents have only stated in the return that Khasra numbers allotted to the petitioner under the award have been mentioned in the plaint. It is worth noticing that explanation for mentioning khasra numbers in question in the plaint has been offered in para 5.11 of the writ petition. However, no averments have been made in rebuttal by the respondents.

Thus, from above narration of facts it is graphically clear that it was not brought to the notice of the petitioner at the time of settlement that lands which are being allotted to him under the award have already been sold and third parties are in possession, though this fact was well within the knowledge of respondents. The consent of the petitioner for compromise was obtained by active concealment of aforesaid fact by the respondents. Thus, the consent to settlement, on the basis of which impugned award has been passed, was obtained from the petitioner by playing fraud. Even if, for the sake of argument it is accepted that no fraud was played upon the petitioner, yet it is a case where both the parties to the agreement were under mistake as to a matter of fact essential the agreement, which renders the agreement void. Thus, for aforementioned reasons the award passed by Lok Adalat can not be sustained in the eye of law.

At this stage, I may deal with the objection raised on behalf of respondents that since respondent no.4''s name, who died during pendency of writ petition was deleted, therefore the writ petition has abated. It is relevant to mention that the sons of deceased respondent No.4 are already on record as respondents 1 to 3, therefore, it cannot be said that on account of failure to implead the legal representatives of deceased respondent No. 4, the writ petition has abated. Thus, the aforesaid contention made on behalf of the respondents does not deserve acceptance.

For the aforementioned reasons, the award dated 28.9.2003 passed by the Lok Adalat in Civil Appeal No.22-A/2001 is hereby quashed. Consequently, the order dated 31.7.2005 is also quashed. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed.