JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Ram Kinkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Manoj Kumar Choubey, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. Nos. 1 to 9 and Mr. Aman Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. Nos. 10 to 31. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein prayer has been made for setting aside the award dated 12.11.2022, passed by the Lok Adalat, Garhwa, in O.S. No. 143 of 2019. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein namely Jibsa Devi along with her sister-the present O.P. No. 1 Kamla Devi @ Lamla Devi brought the Partition Suit No. 11 of 2019 in the court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division-I, Garhwa, which was subsequently transferred after change of pecuniary jurisdiction to the court of the learned Munsif, Garhwa and the same being re-numbered as O.S. No. 143 of 2019 against the defendants seeking reliefs therein that a Preliminary decree of 1/8 th share in the land of Schedule- A of the plaint and 1/16 th share in the land and house of schedule- B of the plaint, be passed for each of the plaintiffs and thereafter by appointing of Batwara Commissioner takhta of each of the plaintiffs in the suit land be carved out and after confirmation of final decree of takhtas of both the plaintiffs be prepared and the plaintiffs be put in possession of their so carved out takhta through the process of the court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after issuance of the summons, the defendants appeared in the suit and filed their written statement on 24.06.2019. He further submits that the said suit was sent for mediation before the Mediation Centre, Garhwa and consequently, it was registered as M.C. Case No. 467 of 2022. He submits that the petitioner herein is the plaintiff No. 1 in the said suit has not appeared in the Mediation and collusively the settlement has been made between the other plaintiffs as well as the defendants in absence of the present petitioner and on the basis of the said, the matter was sent to the Lok Adalat and the Lok Adalat passed the award dated 12.11.2022 in O.S. No. 143 of 2019 and the suit was disposed of in terms of the order dated 12.11.2022. He further submits that the intervenors have also filed petition in the said Misc. Case No. 02 of 2023 arising out of O.S. No. 143 of 2019 stating that they have not been made party in the said suit on the ground that the suit land is also their ancestral land being the descendent of common ancestor Lochi Mahto and the suit has been compromised behind their back and the intervenors’ petition was allowed by the order dated 08.08.2023. He submits that the said intervention petition was filed in the Miscellaneous Case No. 02 of 2023, which was meant for recalling the order dated 12.11.2022, whereby, on the basis of the award, the suit has been disposed of. He then submits that in view of that in absence of intervenors also, the award has been passed and the learned court has dismissed the miscellaneous petition No. 02 of 2023 on the ground of jurisdiction by the order dated 28.08.2024. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that erroneously Misc. Case No. 02 of 2024 has been filed before the learned court, however, the remedy was only to move before this court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. On these grounds, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned award may kindly be set aside and the original suit may kindly be restored to its original file. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties have opposed the prayer and submit that intentionally the petitioner, who is plaintiff No. 2 in the suit has not appeared in the mediation before the Lok Adalat, in view of that the said award has been passed. 7. On query of the court with the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties, they fairly submit that the petitioner herein has not signed the compromise petition and she was also absent before the Lok Adalat. 8. In the aforesaid background, this court has to consider as to whether the said award can be quashed by this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or not. 9. It is well settled in law that Lok Adalats have no adjudicatory or judicial functions. Their functions relate purely to conciliation. 8. In the aforesaid background, this court has to consider as to whether the said award can be quashed by this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or not. 9. It is well settled in law that Lok Adalats have no adjudicatory or judicial functions. Their functions relate purely to conciliation. A Lok Adalat determines the reference on the basis of a compromise or settlement between the parties and puts it seal of confirmation by making the award in terms of compromise. It is equally well settled legal proposition that if any party wants to challenge the award based on settlement, the same can be examined in a writ petition under Article 226 and/or 227 on very limited grounds. In Kiran Singh & Ors. Vs. Chaman Paswan & Ors., AIR 1954 SC 340 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the Court is a nullity and non-est in the eyes of law and its invalidity can be challenged even in collateral proceedings. Similar view has been taken in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs. Vs. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs. & Ors., AIR 1994 SC 853 . 10. It is further well known that the award of a Lok Adalat is not a result of a contest on merits, just as a regular suit by a Court in a regular trial is, however it is as equal and on par with a decree on compromise and will have same binding effect and be conclusive. Reference may be made to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.T. Thomas Vs. Thomas Job, (2005) 6 SCC 4781. 11. It is trite law that validity of a compromise decree can be challenged on the ground that it was obtained by playing fraud. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.A. Gopalkrishnan Vs. Cochin Devaswom Board & Ors., (2007) 7 SCC 482 . 12. Since the award passed by the Lok Adalat is akin to a compromise decree, its validity can be challenged by a party in a writ petition on the ground that the same has been obtained by playing fraud. Cochin Devaswom Board & Ors., (2007) 7 SCC 482 . 12. Since the award passed by the Lok Adalat is akin to a compromise decree, its validity can be challenged by a party in a writ petition on the ground that the same has been obtained by playing fraud. "Fraud" means and includes any of the following acts committed by a party to a contract, or with his connivance, or by his agent, with intent to deceive another party thereto or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the contract:- (1) the suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true by one who does not believe it to be true; (2) the active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact; (3) a promise made without intention of performing it; (4) any other act fitted to deceive; (5) any such act or omission as the law specially declares to be fraudulent and it can be found in the Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar, Third Edition Reprint 2007. 13. In view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Jalour Singh, (2008) 2 SCC 660 , the law laid down in that judgment is binding on all the Courts in the country by virtue of mandate of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in no uncertain terms, has laid down that challenge to the award of Lok Adalat can be done only by filing a writ petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court and that too on very limited grounds. In the light of clear pronouncement of the law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the only remedy available to the aggrieved person has to file a writ petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court for challenging the award passed by the Lok Adalat. It is then for the writ Court to decide as to whether any ground was made out by the petitioner for quashing the award and, if so, whether those grounds are sufficient for its quashing or not. 14. It is then for the writ Court to decide as to whether any ground was made out by the petitioner for quashing the award and, if so, whether those grounds are sufficient for its quashing or not. 14. In light of the above discussions, what has emerged from the above and coming to the facts of the present case, it is an admitted position that the plaintiff No. 2, who is the petitioner herein has not signed the compromise petition and she was also not before the Lok Adalat and this fact has also been accepted on the query of the court from the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties that the petitioner herein has not signed on the compromise and she was also not present before the Lok Adalat. 15. In view of the above and considering the admitted position that the petitioner was not the signatory of the compromise and on the basis of that compromise the suit has been disposed of, which is not in accordance with law. Further it transpires that the petitioner herein erroneously filed a miscellaneous case before the learned court to recall the award and that court has rightly passed the said order on the point of jurisdiction. 16. In view of the above discussion, the only remedy is to challenge the award of the Lok Adalat on limited ground either under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 17. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the award dated 12.11.2022, passed by the Lok Adalat, Garhwa, in O.S. No. 143 of 2019 including the order dated 12.11.2022, whereby, the said partition suit has been disposed of, are hereby, set aside. In light of that the original partition suit, being O.S. No. 143 of 2019 is restored to the file of the learned court to decide the same in accordance with law. 18. The petitioner herein and the opposite parties shall remain present before the learned court on 11.08.2025 at 10.30 A.M. 19. The learned court will proceed with the suit in accordance with law, without being prejudiced to this order. 20. With the above observation, this petition is allowed and disposed of.