Gadi Praveen Kumar, J.

1. Heard Sri Kaluvala Venkata Vara Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Shashi Kiran Pusluri, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

2. The present Writ Petition is filed assailing the Award dated 16.04.2015 passed by the Lok Adalat, Zaheerabad, in Lok Adalat No.223/2025 in O.S.No.120 of 2014, as illegal, arbitrary, null and void and consequently, to set aside the same.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of this Writ Petition are that Smt. Bathini Rachamma, the grandmother of the 1st petitioner, was the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land bearing Sy.No.297/A, admeasuring Acs.3.31 guntas, situated at Bilalpur Village, Koheer Mandal, Sangareddy District (then Medak District). Smt. Bathini Rachamma died intestate in the year 2000, leaving behind four sons, namely late B. Vittal – the father of the 1st petitioner – and respondent Nos.4 to 6. The father of the 1st petitioner died in the year 2003, leaving behind the 1st petitioner, the 2nd petitioner (mother of 1st petitioner) and a younger son as legal heirs. It is further stated that after the death of Smt. Bathini Rachamma and the death of B. Vittal, respondent Nos.4 to 6, with malicious and fraudulent intent to appropriate the agricultural land falling to the share of B. Vittal, colluded with one another and managed to mutate their names in the revenue records for the year 2005–2006 without the knowledge or notice of the petitioners.

4. It is further stated that in the year 2014, on enquiry, when 2nd petitioner came to know through their well-wishers that respondent No.4 to 6 are trying to sell away their share of property, the petitioners filed a partition suit, vide O.S.No.120 of 2014 before the Junior Civil Judge at Zaheerabad on 29.12.2014 claiming for partition and separate possession in respect of the land in Sy.No.297/A admeasuring Acs.3.31 guntas situated at Bilalpur Village. That on the advice of the counsel, they had filed a Memo dated 16.04.2015 praying to refer the matter to Lok Adalat, as the parties to the suit have compromised and the learned trial Court passed an order on 16.04.2015 referring the case to Lok Adalat. That the counsel of the petitioners had taken some signatures on blank white papers and 1st petitioner’s paternal uncles have agreed to give 1/4th share i.e. Ac.0.37 guntas in the name of 2nd petitioner.

5. It is further contended that, later it came to know that the petitioners’ lawyer was colluded with respondent Nos.4 to 6 and gained huge amount by playing fraud on 2nd petitioner and that immediate thereto, the 1st petitioner along with 2nd petitioner and other community elders approached the office of the counsel by name Sri M.Pandu Ranga Reddy on 19.10.2025 requesting to furnish information regarding the fraud played by him and then the said Advocate threatened the petitioners and their family members with dire consequences of implicating them in criminal cases.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned Award dated 16.04.2015 passed by the 1st respondent is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and is liable to be quashed / set aside for the reasons of misrepresentation and the Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to record the compromise without verifying the voluntariness of all the parties in their presence and without obtaining signatures of all the parties in the suit. That the compromise that was recorded on behalf of 1st petitioner’s brother, who was minor at that time while passing the order without the Court's permission, is void ab initio under Order XXXII Rule 7 CPC, rendering the entire award passed by the 1st respondent as invalid and accordingly, the same is liable to be set aside.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 contends that the Award passed by the Lok Adalat is based on the terms of compromise entered between the parties on 16.04.2015 in O.S.No.120 of 2014, wherein all the parties to the suit duly agreed to the terms and conditions of the compromise and affixed their signatures thereto. It is also submitted that the said Award is legal and valid and that the petitioners have challenged the award after a lapse of ten years of its passing without placing any evidence on record. It is further contended that the accompanying affidavit does not disclose any explanation for the delay of ten years in approaching this Court. Therefore, prays for dismissal of the Writ Petition

8. We have given our earnest consideration to the contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.

9. On perusal of the record, the grievance raised by the petitioners is that information was received from certain villagers who are also relatives alleging on hearsay that the petitioners’ counsel had colluded with the 4th respondent and obtained a substantial amount through fraudulent means. The record further indicates that the 1st petitioner, who is a married woman, has been receiving an annual amount of Rs.5,000/- towards crop income up to the year 2025, and this aspect is undisputed. Despite making allegations of fraud and misrepresentation, the petitioners approached this Court nearly ten years after the passing of the Award, without offering any explanation for such delay in the affidavit. This unexplained delay raises serious doubt regarding the credibility of the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation.

10. The record also establishes that the petitioners are the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.120 of 2014 and are signatories to the Award. Having participated in the proceedings and being present when the Award was pronounced on 16.04.2015, the petitioners cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court on the basis of mere hearsay or vague and suspicious allegations unsupported by substantive material.

11. Section 19(5)(i) read with Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act') permits a case to be referred to Lok Adalat and the Lok Adalat to settle the case. Section 20(4) of the Act mandates Lok Adalat to observe and abide by the principles of justice, equity, fair play and other legal principles. Therefore, the presence of all the parties to the original proceedings before the Lok Adalat is mandatory.

12. Section 19 of the Act deals with organization of Adalat. Sub-section (5) is relevant to the present case. It reads as under: “Section 19(5): A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of (1) any case pending before: or (ii) any matter which is falling within the jurisdiction and is not brought before, any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organized: Provided that the Lok Adalat shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any case or matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law.”

13. It is settled position of law that Lok Adalat Award, being an amicable settlement, resolves disputes by way of mediation, is legally equivalent to the decree of a Civil Court, which is final and binding on the parties. In this connection, it is apt to refer to Section 21 of the Act as under:

               “(1) Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court or, as the case may be, an order of any other court and where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok Adalat in a case referred to it under sub-section (1) of section 20, the court-free paid in such case shall be refunded in the manner provided under the Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870).—

               (2) Every award made by a Lok Adalat .shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any court against the award.”

14. There may be cases where a party is meted out with injustice at the behest of two or more conniving and colluding parties, who might have obtained an award of Lok Adalat by fraud or misrepresentation only to defeat the rights of such party. In such cases within a reasonable period, such party may maintain a writ petition. But there should be prima facie evidence of fraud or misrepresentation or collusion in obtaining the award of Lok Adalat and it has to be filed within a reasonable period of time.

15. Thereafter, the petitioners have to satisfy the Court for their delay in approaching this Court. When the petitioners are pleading fraud and misrepresentation, the burden of proof lies on them who are challenging the award to prove that the award was procured by playing such fraud and misrepresentation through concrete evidence.

16. The petitioners having approached this Court after ten years from the date of passing of the Award by the Lok Adalat are now challenging the Award, to which the petitioners were parties. Except for making bald allegations against the counsel on record, they have not placed any material before this Court to substantiate their claim.

17. Therefore, the petitioners have failed to invariably establish their claim that the settlement/award is vitiated by misrepresentation or fraud, which this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be gone into. The petitioners have no absolute right to challenge the award on the ground of alleged fraud and misrepresentation knocking the doors of this Court after abnormal delay.

18. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to set aside the Award dated 16.04.2015 passed by the Lok Adalat.

19. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

20. All connected applications shall stand closed.