The High Court of Telangana rejected a writ petition filed after five years challenging a Lok Adalat award. The court held the petition lacked due diligence, noting the petitioners were aware of the order and previously filed a memo, thus the Petition suffered from inordinate delay and is barred.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[3386 ]
(
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
f
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMINARAYANA ALISHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO: 22043 OF 2023
Between:
...PETITIONERS
AND
(L
...RESPONDENTS
f
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution oflndia prayin(lthat in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, theHigh Cc urtmay be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction moreparticularly one in lhe nature of Writ of CERTIORARI to Quash/Set aside theAward Dated.08/1 1/2018passed by Respondent No.1 in O.S.No.763 of 2018 on thefile of XV AdditionalDistrict and Sessions Judge, Rangareddy at Kukatpally, in respect of shareof Petitioner No.1 to 3 in respect of theproperty PlotsNo.71 to 75 total Adrn. 1275 Sq. Yards in Sy.No.9/AA situated at Raidurg Khalsa Village,Serilingamp:rllyMandal, Rangareddy District, as void,patently illegal, arbitrary andviolative of Petitioners right.
lA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying that inthe circumslences stated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, theHigh Court may bt> pleased to SUSPEND the Award Dated.08/1 1/2018passed bythe Respond,:ntNo.1 in O.S.No.763 of 2018 on the file of XV AdditionalDistrictand Sessions Judge, Rangareddy at Kukatpally, Pending disposalof the WritPetition.
Counsel forthe Petitioner: SRI K. CHANDRAMOULY
Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRIP. SHASHIKIRAN
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to10: - - - -
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLESRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMINARAYANAALISHETTY
WRIT PETITION No.22O43 of 2o23
O R D E R:lx Hort'ltk' Srt JrtstrtL' P.SAMKOSHY)
f
Heard Sri K. Chandra Mouty, learned counselappearing for the petitioners and Sri P. ShashiKiran, learnedcounsel appearing for respondent No.1.
2
{
G<br>
)'SK,J & LNA,J \ w.P. No.'.12043 of 2023
of sale deeds bearing Nos.7963 and 7964 ot 2OO2, l;oth dated 23.O9.2OO2, registered before the Joint Sub Registrar, Ranga Reddy District. Pending the suit, the General I)ow<:r of Attorney holder has negotiated the matter with t[-re deferidants in the suit and got the matter posted before the Lok Adalat, and the au,ard was passed by the Lok Adalat.
'':>"
\
3 PSK,J & LNA,J w.P.No.22O43 of 2023
-f
entered into by the G.P.A_ holder is without the knowledge of the petitioners herein.
{
6' No ptausible expranation also has been made available either in the pleaclings or was submittecl by the learned counsel for the petitioners to explain the inordinate delay that occurred on the part of the petitioners in challenging the award passed by the Lok Adalat. One of the pleas which the learned counsel for the petitioners has raised is that of ignorance, particularly, the litigants being rustic villagers were totally unaware of the iegal consequences and the remedies available to them. This argument of the learned counsel also u,ould not be.sufficient force for more than one reason. Eirstly, the petitioners knowing fully well that the remedy available to them, had engaged a counsel who had immediately moved a memo on l4.1l.2}l}. When the memo frled on 14. 1 l.2)1a did not give any favourable fruits or results to the petitioners, it was expected from them to avail other legal remedies promptly, if not immediately, atleast within a reasonable period of time. It is,by now rvell settled position of law that the u,rit remedy is
4 PSK,J & LNA,J W-P-No.22043 oJ 2023
t'
the only remedy for a person,u'ho intends to challenge the arvard passed by the Lok Adalat- Thc a'"vard undisputedlyseems to be passed on O8.1 l.2}la, the petitioners lr'erewell arvare of the auard being passed in November, 20 18itself. The proof of r,r'hichis the memo filed on 14.11.2018i.e., Annexure P3 u'hich the petitioners had fi1ed before the concerned Courtitseif in the origrnal suit O.S.No.763 of 2018. Thepetitionerswere dulv represerLtedby an authorized counsel on their behalf,yet, theredfter thcre are no steps taken by thepetitioners to challengethe award p€ ssed or in getting an appropriate remedy, seekingredressal oftheir substantiative grievances ofhaving lost the righ t and tit [e over the schedule mentioned property inO.S.No.763of 2018.
7 - Undoubtedly, hve(5) years period is very long rime for a person to avail the Writ remedy,more particularly, to challenge the award passed by the Lok Adalat. Itis a1l the moredifficultto accept and entertain the Writ Petitionafter five (5) years,whetl from the pleadings and the documents enclosedalong wit'h the writ petition itself it is evident that thepetitionerswere aware of the f.ling of the civil suit uide O.S.No.763 of 2018 bythe G.P.A. holder before the Trial Court, they were equally awareof the au'ard pass;edby the Lok Adalat by way of settlement entered into by theother ptaintiffs and the G.P.A. holder. They had also moved a memo in this regard before the concerned Court also.
PSK,J & LNA,J w.P.No.22043 ol2023
5
-7
l { :
g. Accorclingiy, theWrit Petitionis rejected 'No order as to costs. Consequently,miscellaneous petitions pending'if any' shall
stand closed
SDIP.GOWRISHANKA ASSISTANT REGIS
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFF]CER
To, 1. Lok Adalat, Cyberabad, Rangareddy District At L P.ry?Sg.' i. biiL'Cc t"'sHlx.csnuonA N,louLY, Advocate^[oPUC]
BN
GJP .\ .
i I I I I
HIGH COURT
DATED:1610812023
{
ORDER
; t\, ,r , ..
: ()'
/, ,,
I --',
i i :-, il1 i,'ii $E
:,
WP.No.22043 of 2023
REJECTED THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS
\ o. >
>'v
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a Writ Petition challenging a Lok Adalat award can be entertained after an inordinate delay of five years.
Smt. Dandura Swarna Latha
Smt. Manne Padma
Smt. Irday Prameela
Lok Adalat, Cyberabad
P. Sam Koshy
Laxminarayana Alishetty
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
