Created byFuzzy Cloud

High Court of Gujarat

RUKAIYABANU ABDULAHMEED MALversusKADRI RIZWAN MOHAMMED MIYA

Disposal
58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH

Holding

The Court held that the Lok Adalat order dated 12‑Nov‑2022 was void for lack of a genuine settlement and restored the Civil Revision Application No. 211 of 2022 to its original file and status.

Summary

The petitioners filed a special civil application under Articles 14, 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Sections 20 and 21 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987, seeking to quash a Lok Adalat order dated 12‑Nov‑2022 that purportedly settled Civil Revision Application No. 211 of 2022. They contended that no genuine settlement had been reached and therefore the order was invalid. The petitioners also requested a stay of further proceedings in a separate Wakf decree‑transfer application. The Court examined the claim of non‑settlement and found merit in the petitioners’ allegation, concluding that the Lok Adalat order was unsustainable. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, set aside the Lok Adalat order, and restored Civil Revision Application No. 211 of 2022 to its original file and status, directing the Registry to place the matter before the appropriate civil revision court. The order also implicitly rejected any further interference with the Wakf application pending separate proceedings.

Issues considered

  • Whether the Lok Adalat order dated 12‑Nov‑2022 can be quashed on the ground that no settlement was actually reached.
  • Whether the petition under Articles 14, 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Sections 20, 21 of the Legal Service Authorities Act is maintainable.

Subjects

Constitutional writArticle 226Article 14Legal Service Authorities ActLok AdalatCivil RevisionQuash orderSettlementWakf

Judgment

   C/SCA/6772/2023                              JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6772 of 2023


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-

==========================================================

          Approved for Reporting               Yes          No
                                                            No
==========================================================
                 RUKAIYABANU ABDULAHMEED MAL & ANR.
                                Versus
                  KADRI RIZWAN MOHAMMED MIYA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ABDUL K SHAIKH(1629) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR MOHAMMADUZAIR A SHAIKH(13140) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR MANISH S SHAH(5859) for the Respondent(s) No. 5
SAQUIB S ANSARI(7152) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================

  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

                           Date : 21/04/2026

                             JUDGMENT

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Saquib S. Ansari,
learned counsel waives service of rule on behalf of
respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. Manish S. Shah, learned
counsel waives service of rule on behalf of respondent
No.5.

2. Present petition is 昀椀led by the petitioner under Articles
14, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w the



                               Page 1 of 3
     C/SCA/6772/2023                                JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026




provision under Section 20 and 21 of the Legal Service
Authorities Act, 1987 seeking below mentioned relief/s:-

        “8(A) This Honble Court may be pleased to quash and
        set aside order dt. 12.11.2022 passed by Honble High
        Court (Lok Adalat) at Annexure ‘A’.

        (B) Pending admission and hearing and till 昀椀nal disposal,
        this Honble Court may be pleased to stay the further
        proceedings of Application for transfer of decree in Wakf
        Application No.20/2020 at Annexure ’G’.

        (C) This Honble Court may be pleased to grant such
        other and further reliefs as may be deemed 昀椀t and
        proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the
        interest of justice and equity.”

3.      Heard Mr. Abdul Shaikh, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Mr. Ansari, learned counsel for respondent
Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. Shah, learned counsel for respondent
No.5

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Civil
Revision Application No. 211 of 2022 was disposed of by
this Court in Lok Adalat on the ground that a settlement
had been arrived at between the parties vide order dated
12.11.2022; however, in fact, no such settlement was
arrived        at      between   the    parties.    He      submits         that
thereafter,            the   petitioners        preferred       a      Review
Application, being Misc. Civil Application (For Review)
No. 1 of 2023 along with Civil Application No. 2 of 2023,
seeking review of the order dated 12.11.2022 passed in
Civil Revision Application No. 211 of 2022, wherein this


                                  Page 2 of 3
     C/SCA/6772/2023                                                               JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026




Court, by order dated 20.03.2023, granted liberty to the
petitioners to 昀椀le a writ petition.

4.1 He further submits that, in view of the above, the
present petition has been 昀椀led challenging the order
dated 12.11.2022 passed in Civil Revision Application No.
211 of 2022.

5.        Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and after hearing learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties, this Court is of the opinion that
present petition is required to be allowed.

6. Accordingly, the present petition is hereby allowed.
Civil Revision Application No. 211 of 2022 is restored to
its original 昀椀le and status. Upon restoration, the Registry
shall place the matter being Civil Revision Application
No. 211 of 2022 before the appropriate Court dealing
with Civil Revision Applications.


                                                                                                                        Sd/-
                                                                        (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
SURESH SOLANKI
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: SURESHKUMAR MOTIBHAI SOLANKI(HC00208), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 21/04/2026 17:51:42




                                                       Page 3 of 3


Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "Constitutional writ"Sign in to search

For a digitally signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's own website. Only the court can issue one.