Ilaya Alwar N v. The District Legal Service Authority

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and W.M.P(MD)No.7673 of 2025 N.Ilaya Alwar ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Legal Service Authority, District Court Campus, Thoothukudi.

2.The Permanent Lok Adalat, District Court Campus, Thoothukudi.

3.The Sub Registrar, Ettaiyapuram, Thoothukudi District.

4.Suharthi @ Furshiya Nihail 5.Chandran 6.Ramkumar Pandiyan @ Ramkumar Raja ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for 1/11

the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in Lok Adalat Award Number 39 of 2022 (O.S.163 of 2021 on the file of First Additional District Court, Thoothukudi) dated 12.03.2022 and quash the same as illegal and to direct the third respondent to cancel the document 1073 of 2022 dated.06.04.2022 on the file of the third respondent.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.GA.Natraj for Mr.M.Senguvijay For Respondents : Mr.D.Sivaraman for R.1 & R.2 Mr.R.Ragavendran Government Advocate for R.3 Mr.N.Manivel for R.4 & R.5 Mr.K.N.Thampi for R.6

ORDER

Heard both sides.

2.The writ petitioner herein purchased a piece of property measuring 37.03 cents from the sixth respondent herein vide sale deed dated 19.03.2010. It was registered as Document No.753 of 2010 on the file of SRO, Ettayapuram. The property sold to the writ petitioner reads as follows:

2/11

3/11

4/11

5/11

6/11

3.In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the impugned Lok Adalat award on the ground that the property purchased by him from the sixth respondent has also been fraudulently included. The fourth respondent is none other than the niece of the sixth respondent. The fifth respondent is none other than the power agent of the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent filed O.S.No.168 of 2021 on the file of the Principal District Court, Thoothukudi seeking partition. This suit was amicably settled between the parties vide impugned Lok Adalat award. Since the writ petitioner is labouring under the impression that the property purchased by him has been included in the Lok Adalat property, this writ petition has been filed.

4.The learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 5 and the learned counsel for the sixth respondent categorically submit before this Court that the property covered vide sale deed dated 19.03.2010 (Document No.753 of 2010) has not been included in the impugned Lok Adalat award. Paragraph 10 of the affidavit filed by the sixth respondent reads as follows:

7/11

"10. I submit that paragraph 5 of the affidavit under reply contains false statements. The statement therein that the compromise in O.S.No.163 of 2021 is a fraud committed by the parties thereto is absolutely false and defamatory, and I stoutly deny the same. The statement in the said paragraph of the affidavit under reply that the parties to the decree in O.S.No.163 of 2021 registered the decree in Document No.1073 of 2012 is false and I deny the same. Contrary to what is alleged, I had not sold any property in Oddapidaram. Hence, the allegation of my creating a fraudulent compromise decree in collusion and suppressing any fact, as alleged, to court of law is also false, and the question of any such collusion or fraud does not even arise. I submit that in view of the above, the allegations of the distance of period also does not arise. I respectfully submit that I sold a property to the petitioner, but the same is entirely a different one from the subject matter of the writ petition."

Paragraph 10 of the affidavit filed by the fifth respondent reads as follows:

"10) I deny all the statements in 7th paragraph, as the petitioner is not solo title owner of the concern schedule property and as such he is not capable to 8/11

question the lok adalat award because THE PETITIONER'S SCHEDULE PROPERTY SURVEY NUMBER IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM RESPONDENT SURVEY NUMBER. THE FOUR BOUNDARIES OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY IS WAY DIFFERENT FROM EACH OTHERS. A PORTION UNDER THIS COMPROMISE DECREE I.E. SURVEY NO.368/38 HAS BEEN SURVEYED AND SUB-DIVIDED INTO SURVEY NO.368/38A. AT THE TIME OF SUB-DIVISION AN OBJECTION WAS FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE TAHSILDAR, ETTAIYAPURAM. AT THE TIME OF ENQUIRY THE PETITIONER COULD IN PROVIDE ANY SUPPORTIVE DOCUMENTS, SO THE TAHSILDAR MADE AN ORDER ON SUB-DIVISION, ON THAT ORDER THASILDAR CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT NO SUPPORTIVE DOCUMENTS ARE PRODUCED AT THE TIME OF ENQUIRY."

5.Since the parties to the Lok Adalat award themselves affirm before this Court that the property sold to the writ petitioner is not included, I record the said statement as such. In fact, there is no need even for a concession from the sixth respondent or from the respondents 4 and 5. The Lok Adalat award will have to be set aside to the extent it 9/11

includes the property sold to the writ petitioner vide sale deed dated 19.03.2010.

6.This Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 23.09.2025 1/2 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No MGA To 1.The District Legal Service Authority, District Court Campus, Thoothukudi.

2.The Permanent Lok Adalat, District Court Campus, Thoothukudi.

3.The Sub Registrar, Ettaiyapuram, Thoothukudi District.

10/11

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

MGA 23.09.2025 1/2 11/11