NAMDEO HAMBIRA BABAR Vs. GAJAN BHAUSO BABAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the last date, the parties were put to the notice that the Petition will be taken up forthwith for final disposal. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the first to third Respondents. We have also heard the learned AGP for the State fourth Respondent.

(2.) Rule. The Advocate for the first to third Respondents waives service. The learned AGP also waives service for the State. Taken up forthwith for final disposal. The challenge in this Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to a decree/Award passed by a Lok Adalat in a suit on the basis of the consent terms which were filed before the regular Court few months before the impugned decree was passed.

(3.) The Petitioners in this Petition are the Plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No. 14 of 2012. The suit was filed for injunction in relation to the agricultural lands described in Paragraph 1 of the Plaint. On 17th March 2012, the Petitioners and the first to third Respondents herein (who are Defendants in the said suit) filed consent terms. On the very day, the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Sangola, District Solapur, passed an order recording that the contents of the compromise have been admitted by the parties. However, he directed the parties to produce relevant documents of the proceedings pending under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short "the said Act") in respect of the suit lands. The said order shows that the learned Judge was no inclined to pass a decree in terms of the consent terms without examining the proceedings under the said Act.