GANGARAM RAJBA KAMBLEversusVASANT MARIBA KAMBLE AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:13302
              Dilwale                                     1            902-WP-1220-18 judgment.odt




                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                  902 WRIT PETITION NO. 1220 OF 2018

             Gangaram Rajba Kamble                                }
             Died through his L.R.S                               }

             1.         Parlhad s/o Gangaram Kamble               }
                        Age: 65yrs. occu. Agri.                   }
                        R/o. mankhed, Tq. Ahmedpur                }
                        Dist. Latur.                              }

             2.         Ramesh s/o Gangaram Kamble                }
                        Age: 45yrs. occu. Agri.                   }
                        R/o. Mankhed, Tq. Ahmedpur                }
                        Dist. Latur.                              }

             3.         Ranjana Balaji Ingale                     }
                        Age: 50 yrs. occu. Agri.                  }
                        R/o. Mankhed, tq. Ahmedpur Dist. Latur.   }

             4.         Vachala Dilip Mahalinge                   }
                        Age: 40yrs. occu. Agri.                   }
                        R/o. Mankhed, Tq. Ahmedpur                }
                        Dist, Latur.                              }
                                                                  ..Petitioners
                              Versus


             1.         Vasant S/o Mariba Kamble,                 }
                        Age: 58 Years, Occu. : Agril.,            }
                        R/o Mankhed, Tq. Ahmedpur,                }
                        Dist. Latur.                              }

             2.         Sheshrao S/o Mariba Kamble,               }
                        Age: 66 Years, Occu. : Agril.,            }
                        R/o Mankhed, Tq. Ahmedpur,                }
                        Dist. Latur.                              }

             3.         Rangnath S/o Mariba Kamble,               }
                        Age: 64 Years, Occu. : Agril.,            }
                        R/o Mankhed, Tq. Ahmedpur,                }
                        Dist. Latur.                              }
 Dilwale                                        2           902-WP-1220-18 judgment.odt


4.         Dadarao S/o Mariba Kamble                   }
           Age: 61 Years, Occu. : Agril.,              }
           R/ o Mankhed, Tq. Ahmedpur,                 }
           Dist. Latur.                                }
                                                       ... Respondents


                                      ...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Patil Hanmant V.
Advocate for Respondents : Mr. Gangakhedkar Shailendra S
                                      ...

                          CORAM         : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                          DATE          : 18.03.2026

JUDGMENT :
1.         Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the

learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing

at the stage of admission.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the compromise decree passed in Lok

Adalat in R.C.S. No.47 of 2016 dated 13.02.2016.

3.         Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. H. V. Patil, submits that the

petition was filed by the original petitioner, who was an aged person.

During the pendency of the proceedings, the original petitioner expired

and present petitioner Nos.1(1) to 1(4) have been brought on record as

his legal heirs.

4.         Learned counsel further submits that the compromise decree dated

13.02.2016 has been obtained by fraud and is liable to be set aside. He

invited my attention to the Rojnama in R.C.S. No.47 of 2016 (page 34),

to submit that respondent No.1 herein, namely Vasant Kamble, had filed
 Dilwale                                       3            902-WP-1220-18 judgment.odt


a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction. In the said suit,

Gangaram, Sheshrao, Ranganath and Dadarao were arrayed as defendant

Nos.1 to 4.

5.          He submits that as per the Rojnama, on 25 th January 2016, the

learned Trial Court directed issuance of summons to the defendants and

adjourned the matter to 29th January 2016. However, no summons were

in fact issued. On 29th January 2016, though only the advocate for the

plaintiff was present, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat. It is thus

submitted that without service of summons upon the defendants, the

matter was taken before Lok Adalat and a compromise came to be

recorded by misrepresentation.

6.         Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the original petitioner

is the exclusive owner of the suit property. However, by way of the

alleged compromise, it was recorded that the land bearing Gat No.23/4/3

admeasuring 64R is ancestral property of the plaintiff and defendants,

and that an oral partition had taken place on Gudipadwa 2015, whereby

a portion admeasuring 11½ R was allotted to the plaintiff-Vasant Kamble.

7.         Learned counsel further submits that the plaintiff and respondent

Nos.2 to 4 (original defendants) are real brothers. The original

petitioner/defendant no.1 was 82% disabled, illiterate person and was

not in a position to understand the proceedings. It is submitted that the

petitioner was the exclusive owner and possessor of land bearing Gat
 Dilwale                                       4            902-WP-1220-18 judgment.odt


No.23/4/3 admeasuring 64 R situated at Village Mankhed, Tal.

Ahmedpur, District Latur, which was granted to him under the

Government scheme known as “Hadola Inam”. His name has been

recorded since 1950 in the revenue record, including 7/12 extracts,

reflecting him as the sole owner.

8.         It is contended that the plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 to 4 have no

concern with the said land. However, respondent No.1 instituted R.C.S.

No.47 of 2016 seeking declaration and perpetual injunction. Though the

present legal heirs are sons and daughters of the original petitioner, they

were not impleaded as parties. The suit was filed with an intention to

grab the property.

9.         It is further submitted that though the Trial Court had directed

issuance of summons, before such summons could be served, the matter

was moved on 29.01.2016 and at the request of the respondent

no.1/plaintiff, it was referred to Lok Adalat scheduled on 13.02.2016.

The petitioner was taken before the Lok Adalat and his thumb impression

was obtained on pre-prepared compromise terms by misrepresentation.

Thus, the compromise decree is vitiated by fraud and deserves to be set

aside and the suit be restored.

10.        Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Shailendra S.

Gangakhedkar, supported the impugned order passed by the Lok Adalat.

He invited my attention to paragraph Nos.5 and 6 of the petition to
 Dilwale                                             5              902-WP-1220-18 judgment.odt


submit that the petitioner himself has admitted that he was present

before the Lok Adalat through an advocate and had affixed his thumb

impression, pursuant to which the compromise was arrived at.

11.        He further submits that the present writ petition is not

maintainable. According to him, if the petitioner is aggrieved, the

appropriate remedy is to file an application before the competent Court

for recall of the order on the ground of fraud. In support of his

submissions, he has relied upon the decision of this Court in Ankush

Tukaram Pol vs. Shivaji Tukaram Pol & Anr. , (2025 SCC OnLine Bom

2013), and has invited my attention to paragraph Nos.4, 6 and 9 to 15

thereof :-

      “4.In the petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, averred that the suit
      properties are, in fact, self-acquired properties of the petitioner. The land
      bearing Gat No. 318/2/C was purchased by the petitioner In his name
      and Sukhdeo Pol, respondent No. 2, and the land bearing Gat No. 1573
      was purchased by the petitioner in his name and Shivaji Pol, respondent
      No. 1, only to facilitate the cultivation and management of the lands as
      the petitioner was residing in Mumbai, and abroad. The respondents had
      made the petitioner to sign the documents by misrepresenting that the
      suit lands were to be divided in equal portion. The petitioner had
      executed documents without reading the contents thereof. Neither all
      the joint family properties were brought in the common hotchpot nor all
      the sharers were impleaded in the suit. Thus, the compromise decree
      which was obtained by practicing fraud on the Court deserves to be set
      aside.

      6. Mr. Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, would urge that
      the compromise decree is ex facie fraudulent. Had the compromise
      pursis been filed before the regular Court, there would have been proper
      scrutiny of the legality of the compromise. It was further submitted that
      as the suit lands stood in the name of the petitioner, he would not have
      agreed to such an inequitable distribution of the suit lands when it is the
      claim of the petitioner that he had acquired the suit lands. It was also
      urged that there was also suppression of facts in as much as a prior suit
      bearing RCS No. 300 of 2017 filed before the Court of Civil Judge,
      Dahiwadi was suppressed. In these circumstances, for the mere reason
      that the compromise pursis was filed before the Lok Adalat, the
Dilwale                                            6             902-WP-1220-18 judgment.odt

     substantive rights of the petitioner cannot be impaired.

     9. At this juncture, it is necessary to note the position in law as regards
     the sanctity of settlement arrived at before the Lok Adalat. Under section
     21(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, 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. Under sub section (2) thereof, 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.
     The award passed by Lok Adalat is thus final and binding on the parties
     thereto.

     10. In the case of State of Punjab and Anr. vs. Jalour Singh and Ors. a
     three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court considered the question as to
     finality of the award passed by the Lok Adalat. It was enunciated that,
     an award passed by the Lok Adalat becomes final and binding on the
     parties to the settlement and becomes executable as if decree of a civil
     Court and if any party wants to challenge such an award based on the
     settlement, it could be done only by filing petition under Article 226
     and/or 227 of the Constitution of India and that too on very limited
     grounds.

     11. The observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph 12 are
     instructive and hence extracted below:-
           12] It is true that where an award is made by Lok Adalat in
           terms of a settlement arrived at between the parties, (which is
           duly signed by parties and annexed to the award of the Lok
           Adalat), it becomes final and binding on the parties to the
           settlement and becomes executable as if it is a decree of a civil
           court, and no appeal lies against it to any court. If any party
           wants to challenge such an award based on settlement, it can
           be done only by filing a petition under Article 226 and/or
           Article 227 of the Constitution, that too on very limited
           grounds. But where no compromise or settlement is signed by
           the parties and the order of the Lok Adalat does not refer to
           any settlement, but directs the respondent to either make
           payment if it agrees to the order, or approach the High Court
           for disposal of appeal on merits, if it does not agree, is not an
           award of the Lok Adalat. The question of challenging such an
           order in a petition under Article 227 does not arise. As already
           noticed, in such a situation, the High Court ought to have
           heard and disposed of the appeal on merits.
                                                  (emphasis supplied)

     12. The aforesaid judgment was followed by the Supreme Court in the
     case of Bhargavi Construction and Another vs. Kothakapu Muthyam
     Reddy and Others2. The Supreme Court ruled that the aforesaid law laid
     down by the Supreme Court is binding on all the Courts in the country
     by virtue of the mandate of Article 141 of the Constitution of India.

     13. The Supreme Court has in no uncertain terms held that an award
     passed by the Lok Adalat can be challenged only by filing a petition
     under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution, and that too on
 Dilwale                                             7              902-WP-1220-18 judgment.odt

      very limited grounds.

      14. In the light of the aforesaid exposition of law, reverting to the facts
      of the case, it has to be seen whether a case for setting aside the decree
      passed by the Lok Adalat pursuant to the compromise purshis (Exh. 12)
      is made out. It must be noted that the scope of interference with an
      award passed by the Lok Adalat, even in exercise of extra ordinary writ
      jurisdiction, is of restricted nature. Evidently, the Court cannot examine
      the matter like an appellate court as if the entire issue is open before the
      Court. It is only in the cases like apparent and egregious fraud,
      irretrievable injustice to a party, the award is exfacie unlawful, the
      award has been passed in flagrant violation of the fundamental
      principles of the judicial process or it is in clear breach of the provisions
      of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and the rules framed
      thereunder, the High Court may, in exercise of the limited jurisdiction,
      interfere with the award of the Lok Adalat.

      15. I have carefully perused the grounds in the petition. Evidently, the
      execution of the compromise pursis (Exh.12) has not been seriously
      contested. A ground that either the petitioner was not present before the
      Lok Adalat or the petitioner had not executed the compromise pursis
      (Exhibit “12”) has not been taken in the petition. In this view of the
      matter, the Court has to lean in favour of the correctness of the facts
      recorded in the order of the Lok Adalat.”



12.        Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal

of the record, including the impugned order, Rojnama, revenue record

and disability certificate, the following aspects emerge for my

consideration:-

13.        The Rojnama (page 34) indicates that on 25th January 2016, an

order was passed below Exhibit-1 in R.C.S. No.47 of 2016 directing

issuance of summons to the defendants and the matter was adjourned to

29th January 2016. However, the record reveals that no summons were

in fact issued or served upon the defendants. On 29.01.2016, it is

recorded that the advocate for the plaintiff was present and the matter

was referred to Lok Adalat. Thus, it is evident that without service of
 Dilwale                                         8           902-WP-1220-18 judgment.odt


summons upon defendant No.1 (original petitioner), the matter was

taken before Lok Adalat and a compromise came to be recorded.

14.        The material on record further shows that the petitioner was an

illiterate person aged about 76 years and suffering from 82% permanent

physical disability, as reflected from the disability certificate at page 17.

Considering his age, illiteracy and physical condition, it is apparent that

he was not in a position to understand the nature of proceedings or the

contents of the compromise. The case of the petitioner that his thumb

impression was obtained on the pretext that certain signatures were

required for service-related purposes of his son, appears probable in the

backdrop of the circumstances brought on record.

15.         The revenue record, including 7/12 extracts, indicates that the

land in question was an Inam land granted to the petitioner and that he

was recorded as the owner, cultivator and possessor of the entire land

admeasuring 64 R since long. On the contrary, the compromise terms

record that the property was ancestral and that an oral partition had

taken place in the year 2005, under which portions were allotted to the

plaintiff and other defendants. This recital is prima facie inconsistent with

the revenue record.

16.        It is also material to note that though the present petitioner’s legal

heirs (sons and daughters) were necessary parties, they were not

impleaded in the suit. The plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 4 are real
 Dilwale                                            9             902-WP-1220-18 judgment.odt


brothers and the circumstances indicate that the proceedings were

initiated and concluded in haste without due compliance of procedural

requirements.

17.        The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar v.

State of Maharashtra and ors. Reported in AIR 2005 SC 3330 has held

that fraud vitiates all solemn acts. The paragraph no.16 of the said

judgment reads as follows:-

      “Suppression of a material document would also amount to a fraud on the
      court. (see Gowrishankar v. Joshi Amba Shankar Family Trust (1996 (3) SCC
      310) and S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu's case (supra).
               "Fraud" is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces
               the other person or authority to take a definite determinative
               stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by
               words or letter. Although negligence is not fraud but it can be
               evidence on fraud; as observed in Ram Preeti Yadav's case
               (supra).
               In Lazarus Estate Ltd. v. Beasley (1956) 1 QB 702, Lord
               Denning observed at pages 712 & 713, "No judgment of a
               Court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has
               been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything.”

           In the light of above judgment, I am satisfied that the compromise

decree dated 13.02.2016 was obtained by playing fraud upon the

petitioner.

17.         The contention of the respondents regarding maintainability

cannot be accepted in the peculiar facts of the present case. Once it is

established that the order is vitiated by fraud, this Court, in exercise of

writ jurisdiction, can certainly interfere.

18.        The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondents on
Dilwale                                       10            902-WP-1220-18 judgment.odt


the judgments of this Court, would not assist the respondents in the

present case, as the foundation of the compromise itself is vitiated by

fraud. In the circumstances, I am inclined to allow the writ petition.

Hence, I proceed to pass following order:-


                                     ORDER
(i)       The Writ Petition is allowed.

(ii)      The compromise decree dated 13.02.2016 passed in Lok Adalat in

          R.C.S. No.47 of 2016 is hereby quashed and set aside.

(iii)     R.C.S. No.47 of 2016 is restored to the file of the learned Trial

          Court.

(iv)      The learned Trial Court shall proceed with the suit in accordance

          with law, after giving opportunity to all concerned parties.

(v)       Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.




                                             [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
                                                       JUDGE