Court directs respondent to reassign application, emphasizing decision's specificity. Petitioner can pursue legal remedies.

The court disposed of the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to seek legal remedies in accordance with the law. Respondent No.1 was directed to allocate the pending application to another competent officer or handle it directly, emphasizing that this decision was specific to the case and not a precedent for others.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of the award dated 09.12.2016 passed by the Daily Lok Adalat.
2. Exclusive rights and development claims over the disputed land parcels.
3. Fraudulent actions and misrepresentation by respondents.
4. Maintainability of the writ petition.
5. Legal implications of the demerger order by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).
6. Adequacy of hearing and procedural fairness by respondent No.2.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Award dated 09.12.2016:
The petitioner challenged the award dated 09.12.2016 passed by the Daily Lok Adalat in Civil Suit No.160 of 2016/CS No.2536 of 2016, claiming it was obtained fraudulently by respondents No.7 to 11. The petitioner argued that the award was non-speaking and lacked judicial satisfaction as required under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC. The petitioner cited various precedents, including *Banwari Lal vs. Smt. Chando Devi*, to support the claim that the court must record its satisfaction that the compromise is lawful before passing a decree. The court acknowledged that the award by the Daily Lok Adalat should be treated like a compromise decree under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, thus requiring judicial satisfaction.

2. Exclusive Rights and Development Claims:
The petitioner, MGF Developments Ltd., claimed exclusive rights to use and develop certain land parcels as per the demerger order dated 08.01.2018 corrected on 16.07.2018 by the NCLT. The petitioner argued that respondents No.7 to 11 fraudulently obtained consent for the award and managed to get the mutation of ownership entered in the revenue record. The petitioner emphasized that the development rights were transferred to it as per the NCLT order and that the respondents acted on behalf of the petitioner in trust.

3. Fraudulent Actions and Misrepresentation:
The petitioner alleged that respondents No.7 to 11 fraudulently obtained the award by misrepresentation and non-payment of the agreed amount of Rs.114 crores, with only Rs.16,30,03,539/- paid and the remaining cheques dishonored. The petitioner claimed that the fraudulent actions led to the unauthorized mutation of ownership and partition of land parcels without the petitioner's knowledge.

4. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The respondents argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner was not privy to the civil suit or the compromise. The petitioner countered by citing *State of Punjab vs. Jalour Singh* and *Bhargavi Construction & Anr.*, arguing that an aggrieved party, including a third party, can challenge a Lok Adalat award in the High Court if fraud is discovered post-award. The court noted that the petitioner had acquiesced to the knowledge of the civil suit and the exchange deeds, making the petitioner's action belated and suffering from delay and latches.

5. Legal Implications of the Demerger Order by the NCLT:
The petitioner relied heavily on the demerger order by the NCLT, which transferred development rights to the petitioner. The court examined the Scheme of Arrangement approved by the NCLT, noting that all actions by respondents No.13 to 15 were in trust for the petitioner. The court acknowledged the petitioner's rights under the Scheme but emphasized that the petitioner must seek remedies in accordance with the law, including pending applications under Section 231 of the Companies Act.

6. Adequacy of Hearing and Procedural Fairness by Respondent No.2:
The petitioner alleged procedural unfairness by respondent No.2, who preponed the hearing date unilaterally without adequate notice to the petitioner. The court deprecated the actions of respondent No.2, noting that preponing the hearing date from 24.02.2022 to 09.12.2021 without proper notice was unjustified. The court directed respondent No.1 to allocate the pending application for change of land use to another competent officer or take up the issue itself to ensure procedural fairness.

Conclusion:
The court disposed of the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to avail legal remedies in accordance with the law for the first limb of the argument. For the second limb, the court directed respondent No.1 to allocate the pending application to another competent officer or handle it directly. The court emphasized that this arrangement was specific to the case and not a precedent for other cases.

---