ORDER : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar) 1. The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the Order, dated 18.06.2019, passed in Lok Adalat Case No.885 of 2019, on the ground that (1) Respondent Nos. 3 to 8 therein colluded together and placed the terms of compromise before the Legal Services Authority, by forging the signature of the Petitioner on the memo of compromise and (2) that the Legal Services Authority went beyond its scope by adjudicating the rights of the 8th Respondent herein, though he was not a party to the suit, which is contrary to Section 20 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 [“Act”]. 2. Originally, O.S. No. 40 of 2012 came to be filed before the District Court, Krishna at Machilipatnam, by the Petitioner herein seeking the following reliefs: a) “direct the 1st Defendant to vacate and deliver the Plaint “A” schedule property to the Plaintiff by fixing time and in case of his failure permit the Plaintiff to get the possession of the Plaint Schedule Property through process of law. b) cancelling the registered deed in favour of the 1st Defendant in respect of “B” schedule property which was registered before the Sub-registrar on 19-02-2011 vide doc. No. 105/2011. c) cancelling the registered deed in favour of the 2nd Defendant in respect of “C” schedule property which was registered before the Sub-registrar on 19-02-2011 vide doc. No. 104/2011. d) cancelling the registered deed in favour of the 3rd Defendant in respect of “D” schedule property which was registered before the Sub-registrar on 19-02-2011 vide doc. No. 103/2011. e) grant a decree against the 1st Defendant for Rs.97,000/-together with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the suit till realization. f) award costs of the suit. g) and to pass such other relief or reliefs as the Hon’ble Court deem fit and just in the circumstances of the case.” 3. The 8th Respondent herein represented the Petitioner/ Plaintiff as General power of attorney holder in the said Suit. Written statements came to be filed and when the case was in the advanced stage, the matter was placed before the Lok Adalat in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties, pursuant to which, the Order impugned came to be passed in terms of the compromise. 4. Sri. Written statements came to be filed and when the case was in the advanced stage, the matter was placed before the Lok Adalat in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties, pursuant to which, the Order impugned came to be passed in terms of the compromise. 4. Sri. G. Udaya Bhaskar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner mainly submits that when there is no reference of the case by the Civil Court to the Lok Adalat, as required under Section 19 (5)(i) and 20(1) of the Act, the Award passed by the Lok Adalat is illegal and beyond jurisdiction. He further submits that the Lok Adalat erred in awarding a share to the 8th Respondent, who was not a party to the suit. 5. On the other hand, Sri. B.V. Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 3 to 7 filed counter disputing the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. It is stated in the counter that the 8th Respondent, who as a General power of attorney holder of the Petitioner/Plaintiff (son), filed the above Suit for cancellation of gift deeds and delivery of vacant possession of the property, apart from seeking a decree against 1st Respondent for an amount of Rs.97,000/-with interest, is entitled for a share though not shown as one of the defendants. Since, the Plaintiff as well as the General power of attorney holder, representing the plaintiff were present before the Lok Adalat and agreed to the terms of the compromise, the Petitioner now cannot turn back and dispute the execution of the General power of attorney. 6. Sri. V.V.L.N. Sarma, learned Counsel appearing for 8th Respondent also filed his counter stating that 8th Respondent was directed by the Additional District Judge to bring the Writ Petitioner/Plaintiff to the court and also directed the Advocates appearing for the contesting parties to bring their clients to the Court on 18.06.2019. It is said that, pursuant to the said direction, the Petitioner as well as the other Defendants appeared before the court and when asked by the court as to whether the Plaintiff was willing for a compromise after reading over the terms of the compromise, the plaintiff agreed for the same. Thereafter, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat and Award came to be passed. Thereafter, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat and Award came to be passed. The Counsel pleads that the entire proceedings were recorded in the C.C. camera installed in the court hall and if the C.C. footage is called for, true facts will come to light. The Counsel further pleads that the 8th Respondent herein is none other than the Son of the Plaintiff, who filed the Suit on behalf of the Plaintiff and, as such, he is entitled for his share in the property. In view of the above, the learned Counsel would submit that, there is no illegality in the Order passed by the Lok Adalat in granting a share in the property to the 8th Respondent. 7. Sri S. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 would submit that having agreed to the terms of the compromise, the Writ Petitioner cannot turn around and dispute everything. He further pleads that when once the Petitioner is a party to the proceedings, he or she cannot challenge the same by filing a writ petition, unless fraud is pleaded and proved, which is not so in the instant case. 8. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the Lok Adalat was right in entertaining the matter and awarding a share to the 8th Respondent, who is a General power of attorney holder of the Plaintiff and who filed the suit on behalf of the Plaintiff and represented Plaintiff before the Lok Adalat along with the Plaintiff? 9. As stated earlier, the Petitioner represented by her General power of attorney [8th Respondent] filed O.S. No. 40 of 2012 for various reliefs. Written Statements came to be filed disputing the correctness of the averments made in then plaint. When the Suit was in the advanced stage, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. The material on record would show that, on the date of recording the compromise by the Lok Adalat, the Plaintiff, her General power of attorney holder (son) [8th Respondent], the legal heirs of the 1st Defendant, i.e. Defendant Nos. 2 to 6 and their Counsel, were present before the Lok Adalat and a compromise petition came to be filed before the Lok Adalat containing the signature of all the parties and their counsel. 2 to 6 and their Counsel, were present before the Lok Adalat and a compromise petition came to be filed before the Lok Adalat containing the signature of all the parties and their counsel. After explaining the terms of the compromise to them, the Legal Services Authority recorded the compromise. In-fact, the operative portion of the Award show that the terms was read over and explained to the Plaintiff and Defendants, and also to Sammeta Ramanjaaneyulu [8th Respondent -general power of attorney of Plaintiff] in the presence of their respective Counsel and the parties admitted the contents to be true and correct. Only thereafter, they placed their signatures on the document in the presence of their respective Counsel. 10. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner mainly submits that in the absence of any reference by the court, the Legal Services Authority ought not to have entertained the case. He took us through Section 19(5)(i) and 20(1) of the Act in support of his plea. In order to appreciate the same, it would be appropriate to refer to Section 19(5) and 20(1) of the Act, which reads as under: “19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.— (1) xxx xxx xxx xxx (2) xxx xxx xxx xxx (3) xxx xxx xxx xxx (4) xxx xxx xxx xxx (5) 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— (i) any case pending before; or (ii) any matter which is falling within the jurisdiction of, and is not brought before, any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised: Provided that the Lok Adalat shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any case or matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law.” “20. Cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats.— (1) Where in any case referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19—" (i) (a) the parties thereof agree; or (b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the court, for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such court is prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, the court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat: Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-clause (b) of clause (i) or clause (ii) by such court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties.” 11. From a reading of the above, it is clear that, the Lok Adalat will get jurisdiction to determine and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of any case pending before any court for which Lok Adalat is organized; or any matter which is falling within the jurisdiction of, and is not brought before any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised. Clause 20 (1) postulates that where in any case referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19, the parties thereof agree, the court shall refer the case to Lok Adalat or if one of the parties make an application to the court for referring the case to Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court is prima facie satisfied that there are chances of settlement, it can refer such case also to the Lok Adalat. The third clause being, if the court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance by the Lok Adalat, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. However, no case shall be referred to Lok Adalat under sub-clause (b) of clause (i) or clause (ii), as referred to earlier, by such court except after hearing the parties. Therefore, if the parties agree for referring the case to Lok Adalat, the Court can refer such cases to Lok Adalat. 12. It would also be pertinent here to refer to Regulation 10 of The National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalats) Regulations, 2009, (Regulations, 2009), which is as under: “10. Therefore, if the parties agree for referring the case to Lok Adalat, the Court can refer such cases to Lok Adalat. 12. It would also be pertinent here to refer to Regulation 10 of The National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalats) Regulations, 2009, (Regulations, 2009), which is as under: “10. Reference of cases and matters:--(1) Lok Adalat shall get jurisdiction to deal with a case only when a court of competent jurisdiction orders the case to be referred in the manner prescribed in Section 20 of the Act or under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908). (1A) A pre-litigation matter may be referred to the Lok Adalat by the concerned Legal Services Institution on the request of any of the parties after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the other party. (2) A mechanical reference of pending cases to Lok Adalat shall be avoided and the referring court shall, prima facie satisfy itself that there are chances of settlement of the case through Lok Adalat and the case is appropriate to be referred to Lok Adalat: Provided that matters relating to divorce and criminal cases which are not compoundable under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) shall not be referred to Lok Adalat. (3) In a pending case where only one of the parties had made application to the court for referring the case to Lok Adalat, or where the court suo motu is satisfied that the case is appropriate to take cognizance by Lok Adalat, the case shall not be referred to the Lok Adalat except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. (4) The need based continuous Lok Adalats may be constituted in order to facilitate regular reference and timely disposal of cases.” 13. A reading of Regulation 10 of the Regulations, 2009 makes it clear that the Lok Adalat shall get jurisdiction to deal with a case when a court of competent jurisdiction orders the case to be referred in the manner prescribed in Section 20 of the Act or under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Regulation also states that the reference should not be automatic and the court should, prima facie, be satisfied that there are chances of settlement of case through Lok Adalat and the case is appropriate to be referred to Lok Adalat. The Regulation also states that the reference should not be automatic and the court should, prima facie, be satisfied that there are chances of settlement of case through Lok Adalat and the case is appropriate to be referred to Lok Adalat. Regulation 10 (3) of the Regulations also prescribes that if any one of the parties makes an application for referring the case to Lok Adalat or where the court suo motu is satisfied that the case is appropriate to take cognizance by Lok Adalat, the case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat, but, only after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing the parties. The said regulation is in pari materia to proviso to Section 20 (1) (ii) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. 14. Therefore, the question that falls for consideration is whether the procedure as envisaged above has been followed? 15. It is not in dispute that the case, which is subject matter of dispute before the Lok Adalat, was pending before the Court for which the Lok Adalat is organized. It is also not in dispute that the Lok Adalat has jurisdiction to compound the subject matter of dispute before it. 16. A perusal of the docket order, obtained through the e-courts web, would show that an order came to be passed by the IV Additional District Judge at Machilipatnam on 18.06.2019, which is as under: “Both parties are present. At request of both sides, suit is referred to Lok Adalat and settled before the Lok Adalat.” 17. From the above, it is clear that since both the parties have settled their disputes, a request was made for referring the case to Lok Adalat. Pursuant thereto, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat and on the same day, it was settled before the Lok Adalat. 18. If really the argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Plaintiff never accepted for such compromise and that she never agreed for any reference to the Lok Adalat is correct, she would have objected for settlement of the case before the Lok Adalat. It is not as if she was not present before the Lok Adalat on the day when the matter was settled. It is not as if she was not present before the Lok Adalat on the day when the matter was settled. The Award placed before the court would indicate that after the plaintiff was explained the contents of the terms of the compromise, she signed the deed, not only in the presence of her General power of attorney holder, who also signed the deed, but also in the presence of her Counsel. 19. One other important circumstance, which is required to be noted here is that the plaintiff is not disputing her presence before the Lok Adalat on the day when the award came to be passed. There is no such averment in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Having agreed to the terms of the compromise and after signing the document, which was in June, 2019, she now turns around and files the present writ petition in the High Court in November 2019 making allegation, which she failed to establish. Merely saying that her signature on the terms of the compromise is forged, may not satisfy the requirement of law to say that there was fraud, without any semblance of material to prove the same. Further, the averments in the counter filed by the 8th Respondent, who is a general power of attorney holder of the Petitioner show that the proceedings before the court at the time of its reference was recorded in C.C. cameras installed in the court. The said counter also indicates that on 18.06.2019, the Writ Petitioner and also the other Defendants appeared before the court and the Presiding Officer examined the writ petitioner about her willing for recording a compromise. The terms and conditions of the compromise were read over in Telugu, to which she accepted the same. Only then, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat. No rejoinder is filed by the writ petitioner disputing the averments in the counter filed by 8th Respondent. The same gets corroboration for the docket order dated 18.06.2019. Therefore, the argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the entire procedure is contrary to Sections 19 and 20 of the Act, cannot be accepted. 20. No rejoinder is filed by the writ petitioner disputing the averments in the counter filed by 8th Respondent. The same gets corroboration for the docket order dated 18.06.2019. Therefore, the argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the entire procedure is contrary to Sections 19 and 20 of the Act, cannot be accepted. 20. The next question that arises for consideration is, whether the Lok Adalat was right in holding that Mr.Sammeta Ramanjaaneyulu [8th Respondent] is entitled for Acres 01.19 cents of land in plaint “A” schedule property, when he is not a party to the suit? 21. A perusal of the plaint in O.S. No. 40 of 2012 would show that the 8th Respondent herein is the Son of the Plaintiff and he represented the Plaintiff as a General power of attorney holder. The reliefs claimed in the suit as referred to earlier, are to direct the 1st defendant therein to vacate and deliver the plaint “A” schedule property to the plaintiff by fixing time; cancel the registered sale deed in favour of the 1st defendant in respect of plaint “B” schedule property, which was registered before the Sub-Registrar on 19.02.2011 vide doct. No.105/2011; cancel the registered deed in favour of 2nd defendant in respect of “C” schedule property, which was registered before the Sub-Registrar on 19.02.2011 vide doc.No.104/2011; cancel the registered deed in favour of the rd defendant in respect of “D” schedule property, which was registered before the Sub-Registrar on 19.02.2011 vide 1st Doc.No.103/2011; and grant a decree against the defendant for Rs.97,000/-together with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the suit till realisation. 22. From the above, it is clear that the reliefs claimed in the suit were for cancellation of deeds executed in favour of defendants 1 to 3 in respect of plaint “B”, “C” and “D” schedule properties. Further, the 1st defendant was directed to deliver plaint “A” schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. It is not a case of partition of properties, whereby all the persons have to be made parties to the suit. The parties to the suit more particularly the defendants against whom the reliefs sought, agreed for the settlement in terms of the compromise arrived at and consequently, a share was also given to the son of the plaintiff by name Sammeta Ramanjaneyulu to an extent of Ac.1.19 cents in plaint “A” schedule property. The parties to the suit more particularly the defendants against whom the reliefs sought, agreed for the settlement in terms of the compromise arrived at and consequently, a share was also given to the son of the plaintiff by name Sammeta Ramanjaneyulu to an extent of Ac.1.19 cents in plaint “A” schedule property. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Lok Adalat has decided the rights of the parties on its own and acted beyond its jurisdiction. The matter was referred to Lok Adalat pursuant to a compromise arrived at with a view to give a quietus to the litigation. In fact, sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 stipulates that every Lok Adalat at the time of settlement or compromise between the parties shall be guided by the principles of justice, equity, fair play and other legal principles. Keeping in view the spirit of the Act and the purpose for which the Act has been enacted, the Lok Adalat agreed to the terms of compromise, in giving a share to the 8th respondent herein as he is none other than the son of the plaintiff, who is also entitled for a share. Things would have been different had an award been passed in spite of an objection being raised by any of the parties, which did not happen. In the absence of any dispute being raised and as all the parties including the plaintiff agreed for giving a share to 8th the respondent, the order impugned warrants no interference on either score. 23. In view of the above, we do not intend to go into the issue of maintainability of the writ petition, as urged by the learned counsel for the Respondents. 24. Ergo, Viewed from any angle, we see no grounds to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 25. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.