Muttaram Ramesh v. The Mandal Legal Services Committee,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.3663 of 2013 Date: 12.07.2018 Between :

Muttaram Ramesh and others.

... Petitioners And The Mandal Legal Services Committee, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District, Rep. by its Chairman and others.

... Respondents COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS : Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS : Sri J. Anil Kumar, SC for R1 Sri Ghanta Ramakrishna for R2 & R3 Sri G. Nagesh for R4 to R7 THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER : (per Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy) Feeling aggrieved by the Lok Adalat Award dated 09.11.2012 in PLC.No.26 of 2012 on the file of Mandal Legal Services Committee at Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District, the petitioners, who are third parties to the said PLC, have filed this writ petition. From the pleadings of the parties and the submissions of the learned counsel representing them, it is clearly evident that the dispute relating to the title is involved in this writ petition. Sri Ghanta Ramakrishna, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3; and Sri G. Nagesh, learned counsel for respondent Nos.

4 to 7, submitted that as the dispute relating to the title is involved in the writ petition, the petitioners are not entitled to seek resolution of such a dispute in this writ petition, and instead, they can avail appropriate legal remedy for declaration of their title. We find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the above-mentioned respondents. Under the Legal Services Authorities Act, except in respect of an order of adjudication made by the Permanent Lok Adalat after following the procedure, the other Lok Adalats are not adjudicatory bodies and any Award passed by them does not bind the third parties, like the petitioners.

Court to adjudicate the writ petition on merits. Therefore, without rendering any finding on the legality or otherwise of the impugned Lok Adalat Award dated 09.11.2012 in PLC.No.26 of 2012, the writ petition is dismissed relegating the petitioners to the Common Law remedy of a civil suit. No order as to costs. As a sequel to the dismissal of the writ petition, interim order dated 07.02.2013 is vacated and WVMP.Nos.1096 and 1097 of 2013 and WPMP.No.4554 of 2013 shall stand disposed of accordingly. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J ____________________________ GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD, J 12.07.2018.

Msr

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.3663 of 2013 12.07.2018 Msr