ORDER : C. Praveen Kumar, J. 1. As the issue involved in both the cases being one and the same, they are dealt with taking Writ Petition No. 9658 of 2020 as a lead petition. 2. The present Writ Petition came to be filed seeking issuance of a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondents 2 to 5 in causing interference with the possession and enjoyment of the land in R.S. No. 13/1, admeasuring Ac. 3.50 cents, situated at Peddavaram Village, Tiruvuru Mandal, Krishna District, under the guise of the Award passed by the Lok Adalat in Lok Adalat Case No. 277 of 2016 (O.S. No. 48 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tiruvuru) dated 13.8.2016, by playing fraud and misrepresenting the petitioner before the Lok Adalat, as illegal and improper. 3. The facts in issue are as under: The petitioner's mother by name, Chintapanti Venkamma claims to be the absolute owner of the land admeasuring Ac. 4.40 cents in R.S. No. 13/1(14/1) situated at Peddavaram Village, Tiruvuru Mandal, Krishna District, having purchased the same from its lawful owner Sri Jala Raghavulu by virtue of a registered sale deed bearing Doc. No. 576/1951, dated 23.4.1951; that the mother of the petitioner also purchased land admeasuring Ac. 2.20 cents in Sy. No. 13/2(14/2) from one Jala Seshaiah through registered sale deed bearing Doc. No. 530/1953, dated 1.6.1953. It is stated that one Thalla Akkulu, who is husband of the 2nd respondent and father of respondents 3 to 5, basing on a fabricated unregistered document dated 20.2.1957, alleged to have been executed by the mother of the petitioner, obtained pattadar passbooks and title deeds showing the writ petitioner as minor by then. Later on, one, Thalla Ramakrishna, son of Akkulu obtained pattadar passbooks and title deeds and started claiming right over the property. It is stated that the petitioner filed an appeal before the R.D.O., Nuzvid bearing ROR Appeal No. 28 of 2006 and after hearing the matter at length, vide order dated 30.4.2008, the R.D.O. cancelled the pattadar passbooks and title deeds. Thereafter, the respondents 2 to 5 filed O.S. No. 48 of 2016 against the petitioner seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated 20.6.1989, alleged to have been executed by the petitioner to an extent of Ac. 3.50 cents. 4. Thereafter, the respondents 2 to 5 filed O.S. No. 48 of 2016 against the petitioner seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated 20.6.1989, alleged to have been executed by the petitioner to an extent of Ac. 3.50 cents. 4. During pendency of the suit, respondents 2 to 5 herein fraudulently and by way of misrepresentation, taking advantage of illiteracy and ignorance of the petitioner and in collusion with the petitioner's advocate before the Lok Adalat, obtained thumb impression on the papers which lead to passing of the impugned award on 13.8.2016. It is the claim of the petitioner that he is in possession and enjoyment of the land and eking out his livelihood by doing agriculture. While so, on 28.5.2020, the unofficial respondents prevented the petitioner from entering into his land and threatened him with dire consequences. On personal enquiries, the petitioner came to know about the said order and hence took steps for filing the present Writ Petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submits that it is a clear case where the respondents have played fraud and as such the order under challenge requires interference. In other words, he pleads that though the thumb impression on the application and other documents is that of the petitioner, but, he is not aware about the contents therein. According to him, being an illiterate, the respondents, in collusion with the counsel for the petitioner before the Lok Adalat, took his thumb impression, used the same and obtained an award by paying a meager amount. According to him, though the value of the property is Rs. 50,00,000/-, the petitioner was paid very meager amount of Rs. 50,000/- It is also pleaded that the petitioner herein lodged a complaint against the Advocate before the Bar Council, which is pending adjudication. 6. Sri Srinivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel for respondents 2 to 5, vehemently opposed the same contending that the request of the petitioner in both the writ petitions is with regard to respondents' interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of the petitioner. No application came to be filed challenging the Award. According to him, a reading of the prayer would clearly indicate that under the guise of the Award, the respondents are interfering with the possession of the petitioner, but, no where the Award has been challenged. 7. No application came to be filed challenging the Award. According to him, a reading of the prayer would clearly indicate that under the guise of the Award, the respondents are interfering with the possession of the petitioner, but, no where the Award has been challenged. 7. He further pleads that once the petitioner has put a thumb impression to the proceedings before the Lok Adalat, he cannot now turn around and say, that too after four years that the Award came to be passed due to fraud played by respondents. Even on merits he would submit that Thalla Ramaiah purchased Ac. 5.42 cents of land in Sy. Nos. 14/1, 14/2 of Peddavaram Village, Tiruvuru Mandal on 20.2.1957 from the petitioner through his mother for valid consideration and since then he is in possession of the same. It is stated that in the year 1989, the petitioner got executed separate agreement of sale for Ac. 3.50 cents and Ac. 1.90 cents. The counter further narrates the manner in which the said property came to be divided/partitioned between his father and brothers and also about issuing pattadar passbooks in the year 1997. The contents of the refers to the litigation between the parties in respect of the said land and the orders passed, which we will refer to a little later. 8. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the request of the petitioner seeking issuance of Mandamus to set aside the Award on the ground of fraud can be accepted. 9. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to note the prayer of the petitioner in the writ petition, which is as under: "to declare the action of the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 in causing interference with the possession and enjoyment of the land in R.S. No. 13/1, admeasuring Ac. 3.50 cents, situated at Peddavaram Village, Tiruvuru Mandal, Krishna District, under the guise of the Award passed by the 1st respondent in Lok Adalat Case No. 277 of 2016 (O.S. No. 48 of 2016) on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tiruvuru) dated 13.8.2016, which was obtained by playing fraud and misrepresentation, as being illegal and arbitrary and consequently set aside the same." 10. From a reading of the above, it is very much clear that the petitioner herein did not challenge the Award passed by the Lok Adalat. From a reading of the above, it is very much clear that the petitioner herein did not challenge the Award passed by the Lok Adalat. He sought orders restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession of the property of the petitioner. Therefore, as long as the Award remains unchallenged, the question of holding that there was a fraud or that an Award came to be passed at the instance of the respondents and due to collusion between the counsel for the petitioner and respondents, will not arise. 11. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the request of the petitioner requires consideration, as held by the Apex Court in catena of cases, fraud has to be first pleaded and then proved beyond doubt. In the instant case, except an averment in the affidavit, no material has been placed before the Court to prove alleged fraud. The material placed before the Court are only four documents, namely, copy of the Award, the order in ROR appeal, copy of panchanama and copies of sale deeds with translations and death certificate. By this, it cannot stand proved that the petitioner has proved the allegation leveled against the respondents. In fact, the petitioner herein admits that the thumb impression on the petition, compromise memo etc., is that of him. Beneath the same, there is the signature of the counsel as well. Having participated in the proceedings and without raising any objection before the authority, the plea of fraud alleged now cannot be accepted, more so, when the petitioner herein has kept quiet for nearly four years without raising his little finger against the respondents or by challenging the Award. 12. At this stage, the averments in the counter are required to be noted for the reason that the same are not denied by way of filing a reply. 13. It is said that after the respondents obtained pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of their family in the year 1997, the petitioner is said to have filed PLC Case before the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Presiding Officer, Lok Adalat, Tiruvuru, contending that his mother leased out the property to the sons of late Thalla Ramaiah and that the respondents herein occupied the same. It is stated that the learned Civil Judge called for the records/report of the Tahsildar, Tiruvuru and after perusing the same, dismissed the PLC as there was no material to show that mother of the petitioner was in possession or ever cultivated the said land. Against the order of the Lok Adalat, the petitioner filed ROR Appeal No. 28 of 2006 before the R.D.O., Nuzvid, seeking cancellation of pattadar passbooks and title deeds, which was objected to by the respondents herein not only on the ground of maintainability but also for want of jurisdiction. However, without hearing the respondents, the R.D.O. is said to have passed order dated 30.4.2008 canceling the passbooks and title deeds. On coming to know about the same, the respondents obtained order of the R.D.O. under RTI and challenged the same by filing W.P. No. 22886 of 2011 wherein this Court suspended the order of Tahsildar. It appears from the record that in the year 2016 the respondents herein filed O.S. No. 48 of 2016 for specific performance of the agreement of sale said to have been executed by the writ petitioner. It appears, the writ petitioner himself has come forward with a compromise, demanding some more amount. Though he received the entire amount long back, with a view to settle the matter, the respondents agreed to pay the amount and accordingly, paid the amount. Pursuant to the terms of compromise arrived at, Lok Adalat passed the Award dated 13.8.2016. 14. The joint memo filed along with the terms of compromise and Award were signed by all the parties, including Members of Lok Adalat and counsel for both sides. When the respondents went to the office of Sub-Registrar for registering the property in their favour, he rejected the same on the ground that the Writ Petition is pending before this High Court in respect of the said property, which lead to withdrawal of Writ Petition No. 22886 of 2011 on 4.8.2017. Having regard to all the above, it is pleaded that the family members of the respondents are in possession of the property since six decades and 23 years back pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued in their favour. 15. Be that as it may, as seen from the record, interference of this Court to an order passed by the Lok Adalat is very limited. 15. Be that as it may, as seen from the record, interference of this Court to an order passed by the Lok Adalat is very limited. It is no doubt true that as held by the Apex Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Jalour Singh and Ors.: AIR 2008 SC 1209 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 and that too on very limited grounds, namely, fraud. The Apex Court has categorically held where an award is made by the 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 and that the same can be challenged on a very limited ground under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution. 16. In the instant case, as seen from the material available on record, there was a settlement and the writ petitioner affixed his thumb impression on all the necessary documents and an Award came to be passed pursuant to settlement arrived at. Four years thereafter, the present writ petition came to be filed seeking interference of this Court based on the ground that there was fraud. As held earlier, except pleading in the affidavit, the petitioner was not able to establish as to how respondents played fraud. 17. From the above it is clear that,- (i) the request of the petitioner in two writ petitions was only with regard to an order restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession of the property under the guise of the Award; (ii) no application came to be filed by the petitioner challenging the Award passed by the Lok Adalat; (iii) when the Award passed by the Lok Adalat is staring at the petitioner, seeking a direction restraining them from interfering would not arise; and (iv) even assuming for the sake of argument that the plea of fraud requires consideration, but, as stated earlier, except alleging fraud in the affidavit filed, the petitioner failed to establish as to how respondents have played fraud on him. Merely because a complaint has been lodged before the Bar Council against the counsel, in our view, the same does not, by itself, amount to passing of the Award in collusion with the counsel, or any fraud being played, more so, when the petitioner herein did not raise any objection before the Lok Adalat and kept quiet for a period of four years before filing this writ petition. In view of all the circumstances, the request of the petitioner is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 18. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs in both the writ petitions. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed in both the writ petitions. Petition Dismissed.