TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 1239
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ana College established in 1971. The society entered into an agreement of sale dated 11.12.1974 for purchase of property admeasuring Ac. 2.94 cents in NTS 13, Moghalrajapuram, Vijayawada for establishment of Sathavahana College. The agreement contains a recital that second respondent has to obtain necessary permission from the Government for executing sale deed in favour of the third respondent. Mean while, the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Vijayawada issued an order dated 25.01.1982 holding that as the said land covered under the agreement has not been registered in favour of the society, it would be computed to the holding of the second respondent, and the said order was confirmed by the appellate authority. Under the repealed Act 33 of 1976, declaration has to be filed in respect of urban property in possession any individual, the third respondent filed a declaration showing that the property is held by it. The Special Officer, vide proceedings dated 30.06.1990 directed to approach the Government under Section 20(1) of the Act. Challenging the order dated 30.06.1990, wife of the second respondent filed Writ Petition No. 20623 of 2001 before this Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aint before the Station House Officer, Suryaraopet police station and a case in crime No. 351 of 2011 was also registered. He also filed Interlocutory Application before the appellate court seeking to set aside the Award which was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation, but it was returned as not maintainable. Hence, the Writ Petition. 3. The Chairman, Mandal Legal Services Committee, Vijayawada filed counter affidavit on behalf of the first respondent stating that as per record, Appeal Suit No. 128 of 2007 was referred to Lok Adalat on 29.09.2011. In the said appeal, the third respondent society represented by its Secretary Sri Kameswara Rao was the appellant and and Boyapati Srinivasa Apparao was the respondent. On the same day, parties filed terms of compromise dated 29.9.2011 before the Lok Adalat. The appellant and the respondent in the appeal along with their respective counsels were present and on verification of record and after reading over the contents of the said terms of compromise to both the parties and also on identification of the parties by their respective counsels, the Lok Adalat passed the impugned Award, and later, concerned record was sent back to the concer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....round even before settlement for attacking the award. There is no fraud or misrepresentation played on the writ petitioner or the third respondent or the Court. The writ petitioner is playing fraud by misrepresenting the facts. The fact that no allegation is made against the counsel for the writ petitioner in the lower court, who signed the joint memo, itself shows that the counsel for the writ petitioner in the lower court signed on the joint memo only on the instructions of the party. The entire property is an extent of Ac. 5.10 cents and it belongs to the second respondent and his wife, and though the schedule property covered in Original Suit No. 109 of 2001 is Ac. 2.94 cents, the compromise was entered into for Ac. 5.10 cents as the third respondent society was claiming the other extent also by filing another suit O.S. No. 110 of 2001 which was lost by it up to Second Appeal level, and so, in order to have a complete settlement, compromise was effected for the total extent of Ac. 5.10 cents in NTS No. 13 of Vijayawada and there is no prohibition or illegality for such compromise. Having received a Demand Draft for Rs. 9.00 lakhs, not crediting the same to the account by the th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the relevant point of time of passing of the Award and dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the society represented by Secretary A. Rajendra Prasad, and that a Special Leave Petition was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and when the Hon'ble Court was not inclined to grant leave, he withdrew the Writ Petition itself; that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present Writ Petition; that in the earlier round of Writ Petition, a Division Bench of this Court held that the writ petitioner himself was acting for third respondent society and that the writ petition is only a proxy litigation initiated by the third respondent society and that fraud and misrepresentation cannot be agitated before this Court and hence, he prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the third respondent contended that one V. Kameswara Rao (the petitioner herein), who claims to be Secretary of the third respondent society, is not authorized to compromise or settle the matter with the parties; that the settlement is not binding as there is no authorization given to him; that one Alapati Rajendra Prasad was elected as Secretary on 26.07.2011 and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by its Secretary V. Kameswara Rao, filed I.A. No. 8 of 2011 to condone delay of 524 days in filing the set aside default dismissal order and I.A. No. 9 of 2011 for restoration of the appeal. The said applications were posted to 03.10.2011. Son of the second respondent filed I.A. No. 543 of 2011 to permit him to represent the second respondent whereas I.A. No. 544 of 201 was filed to advance I.A. Nos. 8 of 2011 and 9 of 2011 from 03.10.2011. The appellate Court advanced the same to 28.09.2011 and referred the matter to the Lok Adalat. Thereafter, the impugned Award was passed on 29.09.2011. 12. There cannot be any dispute that the societies registered under the Act, can validly be represented by its office bearers and hence such society can sue and be sued in the name of President, Secretary or authorized officer of the society. It is not in dispute before this Court that one Alapati Rajendra Prasad claiming to be Secretary of the third respondent society, filed Writ Petition No. 27867 of 2011 before this Court. By an order dated 17.02.2012, this Court held that the compromise entered into the petitioner and the third respondent society represented by the petitioner is valid and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thin a reasonable time [vide State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha]. But taking into account the facts and circumstances in their entirety and in particular, a letter of Chief Engineer, Visakhapatnam Port Trust of December 19, 1985, it cannot be said that the power had not been exercised within a reasonable period. It is also pertinent to note that the subsequent development shows as to how some of the Officers of the Port Trust were parties to fraud said to have been committed by land-owners. In this connection, the respondents are right in inviting our attention to a letter dated August 21, 1989 by the Port Trust Authorities to the Commissioner of Land Reforms stating therein that the Government intended to exercise suo motu power under Section 34 of the Act but there was no necessity to reopen proceedings and suitable directions were required to be issued to District Collector, Visakhapatnam to pass an award in respect of land sought to be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. In view of these developments, in our opinion, the High Court was fully justified in recalling the earlier order. ... It is thus settled proposition of law that a judgment, decree or or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit. Sub-section (5) of Section 19 provides that a Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of any case pending before, or any matter which is falling within the jurisdiction of and is not brought before, any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organized. 18. Section 20 of the Act, 1987 provides for taking cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats and also the procedure for referring the matter where the parties agree, or one of the parties makes an application to the Court, for referring the case to Lok Adalat. Under this Section, if the Court is prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement or that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance by the Lok Adalat, it shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. Under proviso to the said Section, the case shall not be referred unless a reasonable opportunity was given to the other party. Under sub-section (3) of Section 20, where any case is referred to a Lok Adalat under sub-section (1) or where a reference has been made to it under sub-s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Committee, as the case may be, convening and organizing the Lok Adalat shall inform every litigant whose case is referred to the Lok Adalat, well in time, so as to afford him an opportunity to prepare himself for the Lok Adalat." Regulation No. 38 deals with the procedure for effecting compromise or settlement at Lok Adalat. Under clause (1) of the Regulation, every Award of the Lok Adalat shall be signed by the panel constituting the Lok Adalat. Clause (2) of Regulation No. 39 provides that the parties to the dispute shall be required to affix their signatures or, as the case may be, thumb impression on the Award of the Lok Adalat. 21. In all the provisions referred to, above, the language employed is 'parties to the suit'. The above provisions have a mandatory effect or meaning implying the direction to act. The expression 'parties to the suit' means the parties who have been properly made as parties in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC'). In other words, it must mean as parties to each other. Order I CPC deals with parties to the suit. Order I Rule 1 CPC deals with 'joinder of plaintiffs' where....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the aim for which it was constituted." Section 19 of the Act, 2001 reads as follows: "Legal Proceedings:- (1) The Committee or any officer of the society authorized in this behalf by its bye-laws, may bring or defend any action or other legal proceedings touching or concerning any property or any right or claim of the society and may sue and be sued in its name. (2) Any action or legal proceeding shall not abate or be discontinued by the death; resignation or removal from office of any member of the society after the commencement of the proceeding." From the above provision, it is clear that a committee or any officer of the society authorized in that behalf by the bye-laws may sue or be sued in its name. 'Authorization' means to give right or authority to a particular person to act on behalf of the society to sue or be sued. 'To sue' means initiating or defending any legal proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the CPC. 23. Original Suit No. 109 of 2001 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada was filed by the third respondent society represented by one G. Prajapathi Rao, the then Secretary, against the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 25. Rules and Regulations of the third respondent Society provide for powers of the management as well as the powers of the Secretary. The Bye-laws of the society are not denied or disputed. Bye-law No. 5 provides powers of management inter alia to acquire, purchase, lease or sell any or all movable or immovable properties, to acquire by purchase or otherwise any rights or privileges including rights in immovable properties of society or the institutions managed by the society. As seen from this Bye-law, no specific power has been conferred on the management to enter into compromise with the parties, and so, the management itself has no power to enter into compromise with third parties. Rules and Regulations of the third respondent society are silent with regard to settlement or compromise in Lok Adalat or any other forum, in case of disputes with the parties. Hence, amendment to Rules and Regulations or Bye-laws is imperative to enable the Officer of the Society to enter into compromise or settlement with any person on behalf of the society. Under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registrati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any other name, and intimate such nomination within 30 days thereof to the competent authority. As defined under Section 2(12) of the Act, 1982, 'competent authority' means any person, officer or authority authorized by the Government by notification to perform the functions of the competent authority under this Act for such area or for such purposes as may be specified in the Notification. 29. Relevant portion of order of the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in Re. No. 1101/Admn.I-1/2011, dated 26.09.2011, reads as follows: "In the circumstances stated in the letters first and second read above and under Section 24(2) of the A.P. Education Act, 1982 and under Rule 7 of the A.P. Grant-in-aid code, the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, A.P., Hyderabad is pleased to approve the Change of Correspondent-ship of Satavahana College, Vijayawada, Krishna District in favour of Sri Alapati Rajendra Prasad." A perusal of the above proceedings would go to show that by 26.09.2011, the competent authority approved the change of correspondent-ship of Satavahana College, Vijayawada in favour of Sri Alapati Rajendra Prasad. Though this document i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ules and Regulations and they have to be acted upon. Any deviation in this regard would not have any effect on the rights and liabilities of the society. 31. Coming to the second party to the compromise viz. B.S.S. Krishna, admittedly, he is not a party to the suit or appeal. For the first time, he filed an application in I.A. No. 543 of 2011 seeking permission of the Court to represent the second respondent in terms of the General Power of Attorney. He also filed application in I.A. No. 544 of 2011 to permit him to defend the suit. Admittedly, the interlocutory applications and the appeal were posted to 03.10.2011. But, the application to advance the appeal was filed by the General Power of Attorney holder on 28.09.2011. As on that date, he had no locus standi to file a petition to advance. However, the appeal was advanced to 29.09.2011. Copy of the General Power of Attorney said to have been executed by the respondent in the appeal is not filed into the Court and it is not a part of the record in A.S. No. 128 of 2007, Copy of the said General Power of Attorney is not filed by any one of the parties herein. In the absence of filing of the General Power of Attorney, it cannot be p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ugh the General Power of Attorney was pending as on that date. So, advancing the appeal in such a hurried manner, that too at the instance of a person, who is not authorized, speaks volumes. It was signed by the advocate appearing on behalf of the parties. 35. Further more, the Lok Adalat constituted in the District Level is not in accordance with Regulation No. 32(2) of the Regulations, 1996, which reads as follows: "Composition of the Lok Adalat:- Xxx (2) At District Level:- The Secretary of the District Authority organizing the Lok Adalat shall constitute Benches of the Lok Adalats, each Bench comprising two or three of the following:- (i) a sitting or retired Judicial Officer; (ii) a senior member of the Local Bar; and (iii) a (Local) social worker of repute who is engaged in the upliftment of the weaker sections of the people, including Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Women, Children, Rural and Urban Labour and interested in the implementation of the Legal Services Schemes and Programmes." Regulation No. 38(1) provides that every Award of the Lok Adalat shall be signed by the panel constituting the Lok Adalat, and under Reg....