(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent seeking to set aside the order dated dated 13.8.2025 in W.P.No.30378 of 2025.)

G. Arul Murugan, J.

1. This intra-court appeal is filed assailing the order dated 13.08.2025, whereby, challenge made to the Lok Adalat award dated 09.09.2023 passed by first respondent and the execution of partition deed dated 07.04.2025 came to be rejected by the writ Court relegating appellant to work out his remedy before the Execution Court to execute the terms of the award.

2. Learned counsel appearing for appellant contended that the writ petition filed as against the Lok Adalat award is maintainable and the learned Single Judge had erroneously dismissed the writ petition holding that the writ petition cannot be entertained and relegated him to file execution petition. In this regard, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dilip Mehta v. Rakesh Gupta(2025 SCC Online SC 2737).

3. Per contra, learned counsel for private respondents submitted that in compliance of the Lok Adalat award dated 09.09.2023, private respondents took steps to survey the properties. Since appellant did not cooperate and objected the conduct of survey, they have proceeded and executed partition deed by setting apart the share of appellant herein and therefore, the challenge made to the Lok Adalat award after expressing consent and signing the Memorandum of Understanding is not maintainable.

4. We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the materials available on record.

5. The parties have been litigating seeking a share in the properties in O.S.No.103 of 2012. Pursuant to the understanding entered into between appellant and respondents 4 to 16, they have signed a Memorandum of Understanding and filed before the Lok Adalat conducted by first respondent, in which, Lok Adalat award dated 09.09.2023 came to be passed, whereby, the shares of parties were determined.

6. Subsequently, since appellant did not come forward and co-operate with private respondents for surveying the properties and executing the partition deed, private respondents had taken steps for execution of the partition deed among themselves by setting apart the share of appellant. When the document was presented for registration, the same was refused for registration by third respondent/Sub Registrar through proceedings dated 19.03.2025 and the same was challenged in W.P.No.11546 of 2025 by the private respondents.

7. Appellant herein was second respondent in the aforesaid writ petition. The writ Court, by order dated 01.04.2025, set aside the order passed by third respondent/Sub Registrar and directed the third respondent/Sub Registrar to entertain the document for registration. Learned counsel further submitted that pursuant to the directions imposed, the partition deed executed has been registered.

8. Thereafter, appellant had filed the writ petition assailing the very Lok Adalat award dated 09.09.2023 and also the consequential execution of partition deed dated 07.04.2025. In view of the allegation that the Lok Adalat award has not been complied with, the learned Single Judge held that the said award is in the nature of a decree and the same can be executed like any other decree and if any condition imposed in the award has not been complied with, it is for appellant to approach the appropriate Execution Court for executing the award.

9. Appellant has assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge only on the ground that the writ petition is maintainable. There is no quarrel in respect of the proposition that writ petition filed as against Lok Adalat award is maintainable on very limited grounds, viz. if fraud, misrepresentation and collusion are alleged. In the instant case, it is not the case of appellant that there was fraud, misrepresentation or collusion, based on which the Lok Adalat award challenged. It is the case of appellant that after the Lok Adalat award was passed, the terms of the award were not complied with.

10. In our considered opinion, the challenge made to the award on the aforesaid ground is per se not maintainable and once Lok Adalat award is passed, it partakes the character of the decree which is to be enforced. If at all appellant has any grievance with regard to non-compliance of the terms of the Lok Adalat award, it is for appellant to seek execution of the award. The learned Single Judge has rightly considered the said aspect and relegated appellant to file execution petition before the appropriate forum seeking to execute the terms of the award. Thus, we do not see any error or illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge.

11. The writ appeal is dismissed. However, we leave it open to appellant to work out his remedy in the manner known to law. There shall be no order as to costs.