KARUMANCHI VENKAIAH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the three petitioners viz., K.Venkaiah, Rama Rao and Narasimha Rao, sons of Ramadasu against 8 respondents of whom respondents 5 to 8 relevant are K.B.Ramana, K.Nageswara Rao, B.C.V.Ramana and K.Siva. 1st respondent is the State, 2nd respondent is the State Legal Services Authority, 3rd respondent is the Mandal Legal Services Committee, Gurazala, 4th respondent is the Circle Inspector of Police, Macherla Rural Police Station of Guntur District. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash all the proceedings in Lok Adalat Case No.251 of 2014 in connection with P.L.C. No.36 of 2014 on the file of Mandal Legal Services Committee, Gurazala. Brief facts are that the 5th respondent filed a suit in O.S. No.71 of 1995 (old No.34 of 1987) on the file of Subordinate Judge, Gurazala seeking partition of the suit schedule properties and for allotment of 1/5th share each to the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 therein viz., respondents 5 to 7 and predecessor of respondent No.8. On contest the same was preliminarily decreed on 30.06.1997 for partition but not for separate possession at that stage, but for to file separate application for profits etc., against defendants 5 to 8 therein who are the petitioners herein and their mother Annapurnamma in possession of the property. The decree remained conclusive though the same being challenged before various appellate authorities vide A.S. No.232 of 1997, S.A. No.706 of 2003. The plaintiff filed I.A. No.271 of 2004 for passing of final decree where one advocate -Commissioner was appointed for division of the properties, however, later withdrawn the application. It appears there is no further final decree application by any of the parties to the lis, though any of them are entitled in respect of their respective defined share of the preliminary decree made final, for division, leave about entitlement of profits to determine.

(2.) The contention of the petitioners is that instead of securing final decree, the respondents 5 to 8 filed P.L.C. No.36 of 2014 before the 3rd respondent seeking allotment of portions of suit schedule properties and on considering the same, the 3rd respondent passed an award on 19.12.2014 accepting the division of suit schedule properties as agreed upon by respondents 5 to 8 by observing that the award can be executed before the District Court. It is further contended that the 3rd respondent entertained separate applications filed by respondent Nos.6 to 8 seeking a direction to the Sub -registrar, Macherla for execution of deeds of conveyance, for making necessary entries in the concerned record and to deliver possession of their respective portions allotted in terms of the award dated 19.12.2014 and also to issue pattadar pass books and title deeds and the 3rd respondent, beyond the scope of his jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions under Legal Services Authority Rules, cause executed a registered document conveying title to portions of the property on remitting necessary stamp duty and also passed orders for delivery of possession of the suit schedule property. It is further contended that pursuant to the direction and at the behest of respondents 5 to 8, the 4th respondent called the petitioners to the police station and ordered that they should hand over vacant possession of the suit schedule properties to respondents 6 to 8, which is totally illegal and hence the order dated 19.12.2014 is liable to be set aside.

(3.) It is the contest of respondents 5 to 8, with counter affidavit of 5th respondent, while disputing the maintainability of the writ petition, that the writ petitioners and their mother as defendants 5 to 8 of O.S. No.71 of 1995 suffered preliminary decree for partition with profits to get final decree that made final having been unsuccessful including before the Apex Court in the S.L.P (civil) No.3925 of 2015 dated 20.02.2015. The Lok Adalat award under challenge is dealing with the allotment of shares, pursuant to the preliminary decree that was made final. The earlier final decree application was closed as withdrawn, from stay of passing of final decree and there was a proposal through elders later to give quietus to the lis. The commissioner appointed found only item 4 residential house is not partiable, but for other items. It was suggested through elders pursuant to the preliminary decree to take separate possession and to give up claim of profits that was not materialized. It is therefrom approached the Legal Services Authority and the orders in question were passed which no way requires interference, thereby sought for dismissal of writ petition.