ORDER : N. Tukaramji, J. We have heard Mr. Vemuganti Mahesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Shashikiran Pusluri, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Legal Services Authority/respondent No.1 in both the writ petitions and Mr.Y.Rama Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3, 5 and 11 in W.P.No.26223 of 2023 and for respondent No.5 in W.P.No.13064 of 2024. 2. W.P.No.26223 of 2023 has been filed for issuance of writ in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for record in Lok Adalat Case No.250 of 2019 in O.S.No.220 of 2012 on the file of the I Additional District Judge at Karimnagar and to set aside the Lok Adalat Award dated 29.03.2019. 3. W.P.No.13064 of 2024 has been filed for issuance of writ in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for record in Lok Adalat Case No.1052 of 2017 in O.S.No.4 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar and to set aside the Lok Adalat Award dated 23.08.2017. 4. The writ petitioners are third parties to the respective suit proceedings. 5. W.P.No.26223 of 2023 : The suit O.S.No.220 of 2012 was filed by the respondent Nos.2 to 12 herein seeking perpetual injunction against the respondent Nos.13 and 14 herein in respect of the suit schedule properties in item Nos.I to V, total admeasuring Ac.03.18 guntas in Sy.Nos.16/A to 16/D situated at Seetharampur Village of Karimnagar Mandal and District. 6. In the suit, Mr.Alla Kondal Reddy/the plaintiff No.10 and Mohammed Ibrahim @ Nawab/defendant No.1 (vendor of the writ petitioners) have amicably settled the issues in respect of item No.II and IV of the suit schedule property i.e. Ac.01.27 guntas in Sy.Nos.16/A to 16/D situated at Seetharampur village of Karimnagar Mandal and District whereby the defendant No.1 admitted the title and possession of the plaintiff No.10 over the suit schedule property of Item Nos.II and IV. Accordingly, on 29.03.2019 an Award has been passed. 7. Accordingly, on 29.03.2019 an Award has been passed. 7. W.P.No.13064 of 2024: The respondent No.2 herein as plaintiff (respondent No.13 in Writ Petition No.26223 of 2023 and defendant No.1 in O.S.No.220 of 2012) filed suit vide O.S.No.4 of 2011 against the respondent Nos.3 to 6 herein/defendant Nos.1 to 4 seeking declaration of title and perpetual injunction and also to declare the sale deed dated 25.09.2009 as null and void and not binding on him in respect of the suit schedule property admeasuring Ac.01.08 guntas in Sy.Nos.16/A to 16/D situated at Seetharampur Village of Karimnagar Mandal and District. 8. The suit was settled between the parties and Award was passed through Lok Adalat on 23.08.2017 whereby the respondent No.2/plaintiff in the suit O.S.No.4 of 2011 (vendor of the writ petitioners/respondent No.13 in W.P.No.26223 of 2023 and defendant No.1 in O.S.No.220 of 2012) had executed registered deeds relinquishing his rights in favour of the owners of the property and the defendant No.3/Nampally Nagarjuna Chary and Bukka Poshetty and affirmed registered agreement of sale-cum-GPA dated 04.07.2012 in favour of Nampelly Ravikanth, S/o.Nagarjuna Chary and the relinquishment deed on 15.12.2015. Additionally executed four registered relinquishment deeds and accepted that the suit schedule property has to be enjoyed by the defendants. 9. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that the petitioners (in W.P.No.13064 of 2024) had purchased 244.44 square yards, 201.66 square yards and 215 square yards from Mohammad Ibrahim/respondent No.2 (defendant No.1 in O.S.No.220 of 2012 and plaintiff in O.S.No.4 of 2011 hereinafter ‘the defendant No.1’) under registered sale deeds dated 30.01.2015, 24.08.2016 and 14.09.2016 respectively in Sy.Nos.16/A to 16/D situated at Seetharampur village of Karimnagar mandal and district. The suit O.S.No.220 of 2012 was filed by eleven plaintiffs against the vendor of the petitioners/defendant No.1 and one Mohd. Abdul Ravoof seeking perpetual injunction over the suit schedule properties in five items total admeasuring Ac.03.18 guntas. In the suit, it has been claimed that the plaintiffs 1 to 9 therein jointly purchased Ac.07.02 guntas in Sy.Nos.16/A to 16/D for a valuable consideration under registered sale deed from the original pattedar Mahboob Ali in the year 2008. Abdul Ravoof seeking perpetual injunction over the suit schedule properties in five items total admeasuring Ac.03.18 guntas. In the suit, it has been claimed that the plaintiffs 1 to 9 therein jointly purchased Ac.07.02 guntas in Sy.Nos.16/A to 16/D for a valuable consideration under registered sale deed from the original pattedar Mahboob Ali in the year 2008. Subsequently to meet their necessities they sold Ac.01.01 guntas in favour of Gujjula Ram Krishna Reddy and five others, Ac.0.19 guntas and 42 square yards to Bukka Poshetty, Ac.0.12 guntas and 75 square yards to K.Rama Krishna in total Ac.1.33 guntas and remaining property of Ac.03.18 guntas was in their possession. Subsequently that property was sold to A. Kondal Reddy and C.Bhoopal Reddy/plaintiff Nos.10 and 11 and another under registered sale deed. However, the plaintiff Nos.1 to 9 are continuing in possession. Further contended that the defendants therein including the vendor of the petitioners herein and another are interfering with their possession. Their further case was that the vendor of the petitioner/defendant No.1 herein had executed registered general power of attorney (GPA) in favour of Bollam Laxman on 18.01.2008, whereupon the GPA settled the dispute by execution of a registered relinquishment deed on 25.09.2009 in favour of the plaintiffs, admitting no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property by receiving Rs.50,000/- towards expenses and also stood as attestor for the registered sale deed executed by the pattedars in favour of the plaintiffs. Accordingly the suit was settled between Kondal Reddy/plaintiff No.10 and the vendor of the petitioner/defendant No.1 in respect of Ac.0.12 gutnas/item No.II and Ac.01.15 guntas/item No.IV in Sy.Nos.16/A to 16/D. 10. On the other hand, the vendor of the petitioners/defendant No.1 in O.S.No.220 of 2012 filed suit O.S.No.4 of 2011 seeking declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of land admeasuring Ac.01.08 guntas in Sy.Nos.16/A to 16/D of Seetharampur village, Karimnagar mandal and district by pleading that originally the land belongs to Mohd.Ankoos and others and through the general power of attorney of the owner, Garvandula Srinivas, himself and one Patnam Venugopal purchased land admeasuring Ac.01.10 guntas and Ac.0.20 guntas respectively under registered sale deed on 28.06.2007. Later he sold Ac.0.02 guntas to one Asma Parveen on 09.08.2007 through registered sale deed and on 18.01.2008 he executed registered general power of attorney in favour of Bollam Laxman/defendant No.1 therein. Later he sold Ac.0.02 guntas to one Asma Parveen on 09.08.2007 through registered sale deed and on 18.01.2008 he executed registered general power of attorney in favour of Bollam Laxman/defendant No.1 therein. Later he came to know that on 23.07.2010 that his general power of attorney executed relinquishment deed dated 25.09.2009 admeasuring Ac.01.10 guntas in favour of Chittumalla Amar, Nampally Nagarjuna Chary and Konda Srinivas/defendants 2 to 4 therein. Thereupon contending that the deed of general power of attorney was unconversant language of English and after sale of Ac.0.02 guntas to Asma Parveen he was in possession of Ac.01.08 guntas and the execution of relinquishment deed by his general power of attorney is a fraudulent act and as he did not ratify, the relinquishment deed as such that deed is not binding on him, prayed for declaration and injunction. As the defendants remained absent an ex parte decree was passed in favour of the plaintiffs on 29.04.2011. Subsequently on an application vide I.A.No.1435 of 2015 and order dated 23.08.2017, the ex parte decree was set aside and matter was restored to file and upon petition to record the settlement between the parties, the suit was referred to Lok Adalat and decree was passed in terms of the settlement. Whereby relinquishment deeds executed by the plaintiff (vendor of the writ petitioners) on 15.12.2015 in favour of the son of Nampelli Ravi Kanth son of Nampelli Nagarjuna Chary (defendant No.3 in OS No.4 of 2011), Chittumalla Amar (defendant No.2 in OS No.4 of 2011), Goli Chandra Bhupal Reddy, Kanukuntla Rama Krishna, Bukka Srinivas and affirmed the general power of attorney executed by him in favour of Bollam Laxman/defendant No.1. 11. In this factual position, the writ petitioners, contending that the Lok Adalat settlement in both the suits are outcome of fraudulent acts to defeat their interest over the schedule property, prayed for setting aside the Awards. 12. In contrast, learned counsel for the defendants pleaded supporting the Lok Adalat Awards. Further submitted that the petitioners are third parties to the proceedings and their vendor/respondent No.1 had voluntarily agreed for settlement, signed on the Award and executed the relinquishment deeds, in addition validated his earlier general power of attorney in favour of Bollam Laxman and the transactions done by him. Therefore, the conclusions recorded in the Awards are perfectly valid. Further submitted that the petitioners are third parties to the proceedings and their vendor/respondent No.1 had voluntarily agreed for settlement, signed on the Award and executed the relinquishment deeds, in addition validated his earlier general power of attorney in favour of Bollam Laxman and the transactions done by him. Therefore, the conclusions recorded in the Awards are perfectly valid. Furthermore except pleading that there was a fraud or deception in settling the matter, the petitioners failed to make out any fact or circumstance proving such connivance in the settlement recorded by the Lok Adalat. If at all the petitioners have any grievance in respect of their transaction, they can contest against their vendor but setting aside the Lok Adalat Awards would prejudice their rights and would disturb crystalised rights in their favour. Thus prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions. 13. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the materials on record. 14. A careful reading of pleadings in the suits particularly the suit filed by the respondent No.2/vendor of the writ petitioners i.e. O.S.No.4 of 2011, it is evident that he claimed right over Ac.01.10 guntas in Sy.Nos.16/A to 16/D by virtue of registered sale deed dated 28.06.2007 with an admission that he sold Ac.0.02 guntas from out of that property in favour of one Asma Parveen under registered sale deed. He further claimed that he executed general power of attorney in favour of Bollam Laxman/defendant No.1. Correspondingly, the plaintiffs in O.S.No.220 of 2012 had claimed that Bollam Laxman had settled the matter and executed the registered relinquishment deed dated 25.09.2009, though the execution was admitted, the writ petitioners vendor disputed the deed as he did not ratify the same. 15. On the other hand, the O.S.No.220 of 2012 was amicably settled among the parties on 29.03.2019. As per the Award, the writ petitioners’ vendor accepted the relinquishment deed and the right of the plaintiff No.10 over the property, to the extent of his interest. 16. It is pertinent to note that, as per the award in O.S.No.4 of 2011 the respondent No.2/vendor of the petitioners had executed as many as six registered relinquishment deeds one each in favour of the defendant Nos.2 and 3 and four in the names of different persons and accepted the rights of the defendants. 17. 16. It is pertinent to note that, as per the award in O.S.No.4 of 2011 the respondent No.2/vendor of the petitioners had executed as many as six registered relinquishment deeds one each in favour of the defendant Nos.2 and 3 and four in the names of different persons and accepted the rights of the defendants. 17. The relevant paras in the Award in O.S.No.4 of 2011 read as follows: “1. Thereafter, the plaintiff executed a registered relinquishment of disputed right deed in Doc.No.12383/2015 dated 15.12.2015 in faovur ofh te above said purchaser and GPA Holder Nampelly Ravikanth S/o NagarjunaChary. That the plaintiff further executed a Regd. Relinquishment of disputed rights bearing document No.12328/2015, dated 15.12.2015 in favour of the defendant No.2 by receiving the amount towards expenses. Similarly, the plaintiff executed regd. Relinquishment of disputed rights in favour of other owners of the land. Thereby the parties tothis suit have agreed between themselves to have the suit settled and there is no necessity of the case being tried. 2. That the plaintiff further executed other Regd. Relinquishment of disputed right deeds in Doc.Nos.1)12329/2015, dated 15.12.2015, 2) 12330/2015 dated 15.12.2015, 3) 12331kl/2015 dated 15.12.2015 and 4)12332/2015 dated 15.12.2015 in favour of Goli Chandra Bhupal Reddy, S/o Janardhan Reddy and other relinquishment of disputed right deed bearing No.12326/2015 dated 15.12.2015 in favour of Kankuntla Rama Krishna, S/o Satyanarayana and relinquishment of disputed right deed document No.12327/2015, dated 15.12.2015 in favour of Bukka Srinivas S/o Bala Narayana and relinquishment of disputed right deed No.12325/2015, dated 15.12.2015 in favour of Kadaparthy Prakasha Rao S/o Koteshwar Rao. 3. That the both parties to the suit have no issues to be settled between hem in respect of suit schedule property and the defendants can enjoy their respective land, purchased by them being the absolute owner and possessors without interference or hindrance from any body in any nature. That the regd. Agreement of sale cum G.P.A.No.6347/2009, dated 25.09.2009 executed in favour of defendant No.1 stands good and valid.” Thus the settlement in the award is demonstrating that the documents of 2009 and 2015 including the general power of attorney in favour of Bollam Laxman in 2008 has been admitted and ratified under the award and settled the rights of the parties by way of executing registered relinquishment deeds by the writ petitioners’ vendor. The documents admitted are even before the sale deeds in favour of the writ petitioners. 18. Further, the Awards were not disputed by the respondent No.2/vendors of the writ petitioners or has not raised any contention at least in the present writ petition. Be that as it may, as the respondent No.2 had abdicated his rights over his property at the earliest in 2009, through his GPA and thereafter by admitting the transactions and relinquishment deeds, execution of sale deeds in favour of the writ petitioners in the years 2015 and 2016 would stand without foundation. 19. It is relevant to note that, fraud or deception or misrepresentation by the vendor on the writ petitioners is distinguishable from a situation where fraudulent and collusive action by the vendor of the writ petitioners and his adversaries in respective suits, to defraud the writ petitioners. Mere settlement between the parties or fraud/deception/misrepresentation by the vendor on the writ petitioners will not make out any fact to conclusively determine that the Award has been obtained by playing fraud against the writ petitioners. 20. Therefore, in the absence of any tenable ground or circumstance showing deceptive act or fraudulent deed among the parties in the suit/settlement in Award, the plea that the impugned Awards are vitiated on the ground of fraud cannot be sustained. In effect, the writ petitions deserve to be and are accordingly dismissed. Nonetheless, the petitioners’ remedies against their vendor available under law are left open. 21. In the result, the W.P.Nos.26223 of 2023 and 13064 of 2024 are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.