AAKASH UMESH TIWARI AND ANRversusJAGDISH OMPRAKASH PATHAK AND ORS

                                                                   14 WP 1539-26.DOC

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                       WRIT PETITION NO. 1539 OF 2026


                      1. Aakash Umesh Tiwari
                         Aged about 28 years, Occ.- Student,

                      2. Umesh Shivraj Tiwari,
                         Aged about 62 years, Occ.- Business,
                         Both residing at – Tiwari Compound,
                         Boisar Road Chaar Rasta,
SAINATH                  Old Palghar,
SANJAY                   Tq. & Dist. Palghar – 401404.                  ..Petitioners
BODKHE
Digitally signed by
SAINATH SANJAY
BODKHE
Date: 2026.10.06
                              Versus
21:03:21 +0530



                      1. Jagdish Omprakash Pathak
                         Aged about 45 years, Occ.- Business,

                      2. Bharati w/o Shriram Tiwari,
                         Aged about 48 years, Occ.- Housewife,
                         Both residing at – Bhola Bhaiya Estate,
                         Chandanwadi, Almeida Road,
                         Sarovar Darshan Tower,
                         Panchpakhadi, Thane (E).

                      3. Durgaprasad Jagannath Pathak,
                         Aged about: Adult, Occ.- Business,
                         Residing at flat no. 902, 9th floor,
                         Jaydeep Park, Majiwada,
                         Thane (W) p.c.- 400601.

                      4. Prabhudayal Jagannath Pathak,
                         Aged about : Adult, Occ- Business,

                      5. Surendrakumar Jagannath Pathak
                         Aged about – Adult, Occ- Business,
                         Bhola Bhaiya Estate, Chandanwadi,
                         Almeida Road, Thane (W)-400 601.

                      5. M/s. Samrin Infrastructure.
                         Office at – Samrin House, Plot No.221-A

                      SAINATH, PA                      1/18
                                                14 WP 1539-26.DOC

  Wagle Estate, Road No. 16, …Respondents
  Thane (W) – 400605.
_____________________________________

Mr. Jaimin M Vyas, for the Petitioners.

Mr. Niranjan Mogre, a/w Mr. Tejas S Joshi, i/b Pooja Joshi, for
     Respondent No. 4.

Mr. Sandeep Mishra, a/w Ms. Madhura Mulay, for Respondent
     No. 5.

Mr. Amogh Singh, (VC), a/w Mr. Chintan Shah, for
     Respondent No. 6.
_____________________________________


                CORAM             :   N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                RESERVED ON       :   28th SEPTEMBER, 2026
                PRONOUNCED ON :       06th OCTOBER, 2026


JUDGMENT :-


1.      Rule.


2.      Rule made returnable forthwith, and with the consent of

the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.


3.      By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioners, inter alia, seek directions

to quash and set aside the compromise pursis cum agreement

dated 09th September, 2023, filed before the National Lok Adalat,

the award passed by the National Lok Adalat on the basis of the


SAINATH, PA                      2/18
                                                   14 WP 1539-26.DOC

said compromise pursis, the consequential order of the disposal

of Special Civil Suit No. 211/2022 and the decree drawn in

terms of the said award, and the withdrawal pursis filed by

Petitioner No.1 in Special Civil Suit No. 245/2022 and the

consequential order of the disposal of Special Civil Suit No.

245/2022 as illegal, invalid and void ab initio.


4.      The substance of the petition is that, the compromise

pursis and the awards passed in both the suits on the basis of

the said compromise pursis and all consequential orders were

vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation, concealment of true facts

and undue influence exercised by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 6.

The petitioners were made to sign the said compromise pursis,

withdraw the Special Civil Suit No. 245/2022 and also execute

the registered instruments by practicing fraud on them.


5.      It is further asserted that, the reference of the suit to the

Lok Adalat was not in conformity with the provisions of the

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (“the Act, 1987”) nor did the

Lok Adalat has pass the awards after satisfying itself that there

was indeed a settlement and such a settlement was arrived at

by the parties out of their own volition. Thus, the impugned

awards and orders are in violation of the mandatory provisions


SAINATH, PA                        3/18
                                                 14 WP 1539-26.DOC

of the Act, 1987 and the National Legal Services Authority (Lok

Adalat) Regulations, 2009.


6.      In order to appreciate the challenge to the awards passed

by the National Lok Adalat, in a correct perspective, it may be

apposite to briefly note, the factual backdrop which had led to

the institution of the above numbered suits :-


6.1     Late Omprakash Jagannath Pathak was the father of

Jagdish Omprakash Pathak and Bharati w/o Shriram Tiwari –

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein and plaintiffs in Special Civil

Suit No. 211/2022. Late Aarti Tiwari, who was the mother of

Akash Umesh Tiwari – Petitioner No.1 and wife of Umesh Shivraj

Tiwari– Petitioner No.2, was the sister of Respondent Nos. 1 and

2. The Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 – Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 in

Special Civil Suit No. 211/2022 are the brothers of late

Omprakash Pathak. The Respondent No.6 is the developer in

whose favour development agreements have been executed to

develop suit properties 1 and 2. (The parties are hereinafter

referred to in the capacities in which they were arrayed in

Special Civil Suit No. 211/2022)


6.2     The Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 instituted Special Civil Suit No.

211/2022 with the assertion that, as late Aarti Tiwari was
SAINATH, PA                        4/18
                                                 14 WP 1539-26.DOC

suffering from health problems and was diagnosed with a brain

tumor and required funds to meet the expenses of her

treatment, she had agreed to relinquish and release her

undivided right, title and interest in suit properties 1 and 2 in

favour of her deceased father Omprakash Pathak. Thus, the

terms of the settlement were arrived at and on 06 th January,

2021, late Aarti Tiwari executed a release deed in favour of late

Omprakash Pathak to which the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were

the confirming parties.


6.3     However, subsequently, after the demise of Aarti Tiwari the

Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 resiled from the terms of the said

instrument and demanded their 1/12th undivided share in the

suit properties. Hence, the plaintiffs sought a declaration that,

the said release deed dated 06 th January, 2021, was legal,

operative and binding upon Defendant No.1 and that they be

directed to act upon the said release deed and the consequential

reliefs.


6.4     The Defendant No. 1 – Akash Tiwari, in turn, instituted a

suit being Special Civil Suit No. 245/2022 seeking a declaration

that, he has an undivided 1/12th share in the suit properties

and the said release deed dated 06 th January, 2021, executed by


SAINATH, PA                       5/18
                                                14 WP 1539-26.DOC

late Aarti Tiwari in favour of late Omprakash Pathak was void,

illegal and inoperative and was otherwise vitiated on account of

coercion and undue influence.


7.      During the pendency of the suits, on 03 rd July, 2023, at

the request of the learned Counsel for the parties, the suits were

directed to be placed in the National Lok Adalat which was held

to be on 09th September, 2023.


8.      On 09th September, 2023, before the National Lok Adalat, a

compromise pursis (Exh. 35) was filed in Special Civil Suit No.

211/2022 and the Lok Adalat passed the award in terms of the

said compromise pursis. In terms of the said settlement, the

Defendant No.1 – Akash Tiwari, the plaintiff in Special Civil Suit

No. 245/2022, filed a withdrawal pursis. On the basis of the

said withdrawal pursis, Special Civil Suit No. 245/2022 came to

be disposed as withdrawn and an award was also passed.


9.      Now feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have invoked the

writ jurisdiction of this Court.


10.     I have heard Mr. Jaimin Vyas, the learned Counsel for the

petitioners, Mr. Niranjan Mogre, the learned Counsel for

Respondent No.4, Mr. Sandeep Mishra, the learned Counsel for

SAINATH, PA                        6/18
                                               14 WP 1539-26.DOC

Respondent No.5 and Mr. Amogh Singh, the learned Counsel for

Respondent No.6. With the assistance of learned Counsel for the

parties, I have also perused the material on record.


11.     Mr. Jaimin Vyas, the learned counsel for the petitioners,

submitted that, the very reference of the suit to the Lok Adalat,

was not legal. Laying emphasis on the roznama of the

proceedings dated 03rd July, 2023, Mr. Vyas, urged that, on 03 rd

July, 2023, none of the plaintiffs nor any of the defendants were

present before the Court. Purportedly on the basis of oral

submissions made on behalf of the parties by their respective

Advocates, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat. The

parties had not given their consent for the reference of the suit

to the Lok Adalat. Therefore, the very reference of the suits to

the Lok Adalat was contrary to the provisions contained in

Section 20 of the Act, 1987. It was further submitted that, the

learned Civil Judge while referring the suit to the Lok Adalat,

did not record the satisfaction that there was an element of

settlement. Such a mechanical reference of the suits vitiated the

entire proceedings before the Lok Adalat.


12.     As a second limb of the submission, Mr. Vyas would urge

that, even the National Lok Adalat Panel had not examined the


SAINATH, PA                      7/18
                                               14 WP 1539-26.DOC

legality of the compromise. Neither the voluntariness of the

parties was ascertained nor did the Lok Adalat satisfy itself

that, the parties had arrived at the compromise out of their own

volition. Even the awards were passed in a perfunctory manner.

The award in Special Civil Suit No. 211/2022 does not bear the

signatures of the Respondent Nos.3 and 5. Whereas the award

in Special Civil Suit No. 245/2022 neither bears the signature

of the parties nor the Panel members.


13.     An endeavour was also made by Mr. Vyas to drive home

the point that, the petitioners were coerced to execute the

compromise pursis. A fraud was practiced not only on the

petitioners but also on the Court. Therefore, the impugned

award deserves to be quashed and set aside and the suit

restored to file.


14.     To lend support to aforesaid submissions, Mr. Vyas placed

reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Madhukar

Baburao Shete Vs. Yogesh Trimbak Shete & anr1.


15.     Per contra, Mr. Amogh Singh, the learned Counsel for

Respondent No.6, submitted that, the petition is wholly

misconceived and has been instituted with an oblique motive.

1       WP/3743/2021 dt. 20/08/2024
SAINATH, PA                           8/18
                                                      14 WP 1539-26.DOC

Not      only   have   the   petitioners   executed     the   registered

instruments in terms of the compromise but Defendant No.1

has received a sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore)

towards lump sum consideration from Defendant No.6. The

facts that, the petitioners had appeared before the Lok Adalat,

executed the consent terms and signed the awards have

nowhere been disputed. In accordance with the consent terms,

Petitioner No.1 has duly withdrawn Special Civil Suit No.

245/2022. Subsequently, Petitioner No.1 has also obtained the

Court Fee Refund Certificate on 01 st February, 2024. Thereafter,

the petitioners have instituted this petition raising false and

frivolous contentions.


16.     Mr. Mishra, the learned Counsel for Respondent No.5,

supplemented the submissions of Mr. Singh. It was urged that,

having appeared before the Lok Adalat and filed the compromise

pursis, it was not open for the petitioners to again turn around

and question the legality and validity of the award by making

bald allegations of fraud. To this end, Mr. Mishra placed reliance

on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hemantha

Kumar Vs. R. Mahadevaiah & ors2.




2       (2022) 8 SCC 140
SAINATH, PA                         9/18
                                                         14 WP 1539-26.DOC

17.     In the wake of the aforesaid controversy, to have clarity in

regard to the passing of the awards by the Lok Adalat, by an

order dated 25th June, 2026, this Court had called a report from

the learned Principal District Judge, Thane, on the following

points :-

              “(i) Who were the members of the Lok Adalat panel

              constituted to take up the matters for settlement, on 9

              September 2023, before which SCS No.211 of 2022 and

              SCS No.245 of 2022, were placed for settlement ?


              (ii) Whether the awards passed by the Lok Adalat, on 9

              September 2023, in SCC Nos.211 of 2022 and 245 of

              2022 bear the signatures of the Presiding Officer and the

              members of the Lok Adalat Panel ?


              (iii) The names and designations of the members of the

              said Lok Adalat Panel who have signed the said

              Awards ?”



18.     The learned Principal District Judge has reported that, the

Panel of the Lok Adalat before which the Special Civil Suit Nos.

211/2022 and 245/2022 were listed for settlement, was headed

by Smt. Rajshri M. Ganvir, the then 4 th Joint Civil Judge, Senior

Division, Thane, and Shri Bhausaheb Shelke, Advocate. The

award passed in Special Civil Suit No. 211/2022 bears the
SAINATH, PA                             10/18
                                                 14 WP 1539-26.DOC

signatures of Smt. Rajshri Ganvir, the Panel Head and Advocate

Bhausaheb Shelke, Member. However, the award in Special Civil

Suit No. 245/2022 bears the signature of Smt. Rajshri Ganvir –

Panel Head only.


19.     With the aforesaid clarity on facts, it is necessary to bear

in mind that, the law attaches sanctity to the settlement before

the Lok Adalat. Under Section 21(1) of the 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 the Lok Adalat is thus final and binding

on the parties thereto.


20.     In the case of State of Punjab V. Jalour Singh 3, a three-

Judge Bench of the Supreme Court considered the question as

to the 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 it is a decree of a civil Court and if any party


3       (2008) 2 SCC 660
SAINATH, PA                       11/18
                                                          14 WP 1539-26.DOC

wants to challenge such an award based on the settlement, it

could be done only by filing a petition under Article 226 and/or

227 of the Constitution of India and that too on very limited

grounds.


21.     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)




SAINATH, PA                              12/18
                                                14 WP 1539-26.DOC

22.     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 very limited grounds.


23.     Evidently, the scope of interference with an award passed

by the Lok Adalat, even in exercise of extraordinary writ

jurisdiction, is of restricted nature. The High Court cannot

examine the matter like an Appellate Court as if the entire issue

is open before the Court. It is only in cases of apparent and

egregious fraud, irretrievable injustice to a party, the award

being ex facie unlawful, the award having been passed in

flagrant violation of the fundamental principles of the judicial

process or where the award appears to be in clear breach of the

provisions of of the Act, 1987 and the Regulations framed

thereunder, and the like, the High court may, in exercise of its

extraordinary jurisdiction, interfere with the award of the Lok

Adalat.


24.     On the aforesaid touchstone, reverting to the facts of the

case, it is necessary to note that, under the provisions of

Section 20 r/w Section 19(5)(i) of the Act, 1987, the Court has

the power to refer any case pending before it, to the Lok Adalat


SAINATH, PA                      13/18
                                               14 WP 1539-26.DOC

for settlement, if the parties thereto agree or one of the parties

thereof makes an application to the Court and such Court is

prima facie satisfied that, there are chances of such settlement.


25.     In the case at hand, as noted above, on 03 rd July, 2023,

the Advocates for the parties had made a request to place the

matter before the Lok Adalat. On the basis of such submission,

the matter was posted in the Lok Adalat which was to be held

on 09th September, 2023, nearly 2 months after the reference. I

find it rather difficult to accede to the submissions of Mr. Vyas,

that the reference of the matters to the Lok Adalat was not with

the consent of the parties. A period of more than 2 months

elapsed from the date of reference. At no point, till the date of

Lok Adalat or even before the Lok Adalat, Defendant Nos. 1 and

2 made a grievance that, the suits were referred to the Lok

Adalat without their consent.


26.     It would be taking too rigid a view of the matter to hold

that, the Presiding Officer must record the consent of the

parties themselves and not the Advocates who represent them.

The prima facie satisfaction of the Court regarding the existence

of element of settlement may be express or implicit in the order

of reference. In any event, these objections pale in significance


SAINATH, PA                      14/18
                                                         14 WP 1539-26.DOC

as the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 not only did appear before the

National        Lok      Adalat,        but      also        executed       the

compromise/withdrawal pursis. Therefore, the submission of

Mr. Vyas that, there was no valid reference, cannot be

countenanced.


27.     The    second    submission       premised      on    the    want    of

satisfaction by the Lok Adalat Panel about the voluntariness of

the parties to execute the consent terms or the legality and

validity thereof, also does not carry much substance. The

compromise pursis is self-explanatory. The Panel Head had

passed the following order on the compromise pursis : -


                                        ORDER

              Plaintiff and Defendants are present. They have

              admitted   that      as   per     Compromise       Pursis

              compromise has taken between them.


                                                                    Sd/-

                                                        Panel Head/

                                                             09.09.22


28.     The consent terms, inter alia, record that, two registered

instruments namely a release deed and an agreement for sale

were already executed on 05th April, 2023 and the Defendant No.

SAINATH, PA                             15/18
                                                14 WP 1539-26.DOC

6 had paid a lump sum consideration of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-

(Rupees One Crore) to the Defendant No.1, that the Special Civil

Suit No. 211/2022 be disposed in accordance with the consent

terms and that a consent decree be drawn therein, and that the

Defendant No.1 had agreed to withdraw Special Civil Suit No.

245/2022. As noted above, the award bears the signature of

both the Head of the Panel as well as the Panel Member.


29.     Thus, the endeavour of Mr. Vyas to assail the legality and

validity of the award, on the ground that, the Lok Adalat has not

satisfied itself about the voluntariness of the parties and the

legality and validity of the settlement falls through. The parties

had executed registered instruments and the Defendant No.1

had accepted the consideration of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees

One Crore), months before filing of the consent terms before the

Lok Adalat. The consent terms were not executory in nature. In

fact, the terms of settlement were already acted upon by

executing the instruments and accepting the consideration

thereunder. These factors also belie the contention of the

Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 that there was no consent for the

reference of the matters to Lok Adalat as instruments were

executed months before the request was made to the Court on

03rd July, 2023.
SAINATH, PA                      16/18
                                               14 WP 1539-26.DOC



30.     The fact that, in accordance with the terms of the

settlement and pursuant to the consent terms filed in Special

Civil Suit No. 211/2022, Petitioner No.1 had withdrawn the

Special Civil Suit No. 245/2022, on the very day, is borne out by

the withdrawal pursis (Exh. 39) in the later suit and the order

passed by the Panel Head thereon. Incontrovertibly, the

Petitioner No. 1 had received the Court Fee Refund Certificate

on 01st February, 2024 in the said suit. In this backdrop the fact

that the award in Special Civil Suit No. 245/2022 bears the

signature of the Petitioner No.1/Plaintiff No.1 therein alone and

the Panel Head, does not detract materially from the legality and

validity of the settlement as the said suit was withdrawn

simpliciter as a sequel to the settlement arrived at in Special

Civil Suit No. 211/2022.


31.     In the totality of the circumstances, the petitioners who

have acted upon the terms of the settlement even prior to the

filing of the consent terms before the Lok Adalat and obtained

the benefits thereunder, cannot be permitted to take a

somersault and urge that, the settlement was arrived at by

practicing fraud and/or the consent decree was otherwise

vitiated. If the sanctity of the award passed in the Lok Adalat is


SAINATH, PA                      17/18
                                                  14 WP 1539-26.DOC

permitted to be questioned by entertaining petitions of the

present nature, the very object of the provisions contained in

Section 21 of the Act, 1987, would be defeated.


32.     The Writ Petition, therefore, deserve to be dismissed.



33.     Hence, the following order :-

                                 ::ORDER::

              (i)    The Writ Petition stands dismissed.

              (ii)   Rule discharged.

                     No costs.



                                           [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




SAINATH, PA                        18/18