In a significant ruling that broadens the scope of judicial review, the Karnataka High Court has held that even a third party, not originally part of the legal proceedings, can challenge a Lok Adalat award through a writ petition if it is alleged to have been secured fraudulently. This pivotal observation came from Justice M Nagaprasanna while quashing a civil court decree that originated from a compromise recorded before a Lok Adalat.
The Core of the Land Dispute
The case stemmed from a contentious land partition dispute concerning properties in Kamalapur village. The original owner was Khemmani Hanumanthappa. A compromise petition was presented before the Lok Adalat between two parties: Nagamma Nagalapura and the children of Karadantappa. Both parties belonged to different branches of Hanumanthappa's family.
However, a crucial element was missing from this settlement. Guramma and her children, who also claimed to be part of the same family and asserted rights to the property, were deliberately not made parties to the suit. Feeling aggrieved and excluded, they challenged the resulting decree dated July 8, 2023, passed by a civil court in Hosapete, Vijayanagara district.
Legal Journey and Court's Scrutiny
Guramma and her children argued that they were necessary parties to the partition suit and that the compromise was entered into in collusion, with the clear intent of denying them their legitimate share in the family property. Their initial attempt to file an appeal was withdrawn upon legal advice that an appeal is not maintainable against a decree drawn from a Lok Adalat compromise. This led them to approach the High Court directly with a writ petition.
The respondents in the case opposed this plea, contending that the writ petition itself was not maintainable since Guramma and her children were not parties to the original suit. They sought to shield the Lok Adalat award from external challenge.
Court's Reasoning and Final Order
After a thorough examination of the case records, relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, and precedents set by earlier judgments, Justice Nagaprasanna delivered a reasoned verdict. The court held that in specific circumstances where fraud is alleged—particularly on the grounds that a necessary party was deliberately excluded from the proceedings—a third party is indeed entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge the Lok Adalat award.
Allowing the petition filed by Guramma and her children, the court passed two key orders:
- Restoration of the Civil Suit: The court ordered the restoration of the original civil suit before the Hosapete court for a fresh and complete adjudication.
- Safeguarding Transactions: It also directed that any financial transactions carried out pursuant to the now-quashed compromise decree must be deposited before the trial court. These funds will remain subject to the final outcome of the partition proceedings.
This judgment underscores the principle that Lok Adalat settlements, while encouraged for speedy resolution, cannot be used as a tool for fraud or to unjustly exclude legitimate claimants. It reinforces the High Court's writ jurisdiction as a protective remedy against such injustices, ensuring that the doors of justice remain open even for those not formally named in the initial litigation.
