ORDER: Gadi Praveen Kumar, J. We have heard Mr.K.Ramakotaiah, learned counsel representing Mr.A.Jagan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.S.Ramesh, learned counsel representing Mr.P.Shashi Kiran, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2, Mr.Y.V.L.N. Prasad Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 and Mr.Maturi Aravind, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6. 2. The Writ Petition is filed assailing the Lok Adalat Award dated 18-12-2019 passed in O.S.No.10 of 2019 by the 2 nd respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the land in Sy.No.83, 84d, 30, 31 of Jallipalli village of Kamanpur Mandal, Peddapalli District to an extent of Ac.29.30 gts belongs to petitioner’s grand father viz., Agaiah, whereas respondent Nos.9 and 10, who are the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Officer and Singareni Collieries issued land acquisition proceedings and acquired the lands and passed an award to a total amount of Rs.1,18,00,000/-. 4. Petitioner further averred that his grand father having two sons and two daughters and he is the son of the 6 th respondent viz., Mutyam Ravinder Goud, and that himself and his father are living separately. 5. Petitioner further alleged that his aunt, uncle along with his father in active collusion, have filed O.S.No.10 of 2019 on the file of the V Additional District Judge at Godavarikhani seeking partition of the suit amount and also filed an application to refer the matter for settlement before Lok Adalat. 6. Petitioner further averred that his family members colluded and obtained a compromise decree without making him as a party to the suit before the 2 nd respondent and an award was passed on 18-11-2019 apportioning the amount. 7. Petitioner further alleged that the impugned compromise decree was obtained by playing fraud and the same cannot be enforced. Assailing the same, he approached this Court by way of present Writ Petition. 8. This Court vide interim orders dated 21-04-2020 suspended the operation of the impugned order. 9. Pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court, I.A.No.1 of 2021 was filed by the 6 th respondent seeking vacation of the interim orders disputing their relation of son and father. 10. 8. This Court vide interim orders dated 21-04-2020 suspended the operation of the impugned order. 9. Pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court, I.A.No.1 of 2021 was filed by the 6 th respondent seeking vacation of the interim orders disputing their relation of son and father. 10. It was averred in the vacate petition by the 6 th respondent that the petitioner has a liability to prove his relationship with the vacate petitioner during pendency of the civil dispute as it is flatly denied by him that he is not having any right or title and interest in any share of his properties pursuant to the award passed by the Lok Adalat regarding payment of compensation since he not being interested party. 11. It was further averred by the 6 th respondent/vacate petitioner that if at all the petitioner is interested to challenge the award claiming any right, title and interest in the said allotment of share, it is open for him to knock the doors of the competent Civil Court and seek declaration by proving that he is also the member of the family of 6 th respondent and have subsisting interest in the properties and seek appropriate relief which he is entitled for a share in the compensation of his independent right by way of leading evidence. But the vacate petitioner contended that instead of doing that, the petitioner had approached this Court having no right whatsoever. 12. Counter-affidavit filed by the respondent Nos.5 and 10 is taken on record. 13. By the counter-affidavit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 5 th respondent specifically contends that the petitioner is not her grandson and she never came across during her life that the marriage of petitioner’s mother took place with 6 th respondent, who is her son. 14. It was contended on behalf of 5 th respondent that she knows neither the petitioner nor the mother of the petitioner. 15. It was further contended that a concocted story has been created in the Writ Petition only through the plaintiff in O.S.No.10 of 2019 with the help of respondent Nos.7 and 8, and that 5 th respondent’s elder daughter- in-law claimed share through her late elder son’s amount in LAOP No.20 of 2012 through O.S.No.10/2019 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Godavarikhani. 16. 16. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of 5 th respondent further contended that respondent Nos.8 and 9 colluded with all and created lot of hurdles and physically and mentally harassed the 6 th respondent herein, at that juncture, all the parties entered into a compromise and settled their claims before the Lok Adalat by order dated 18-12-2018, and that the Writ petitioner without impleading himself in the trial Court proceedings, is challenging the award without any right. 17. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 5 th respondent pleads that her elder son expired a day before Mahasivarathri of the year 2003 on account of an accident, and one lady came and claimed that she is the wife of her elder son. However, 5 th respondent is not in a position to remember face of the said lady and later the said lady never approached her till the date of filing of the counter. 18. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 5 th respondent further contends that if the petitioner is the grandson of 5 th respondent, as alleged, he never resided with her, therefore denies that the petitioner is son of the 6 th respondent. 19. On perusal of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.10-Singareni Collieries, learned Standing Counsel contends that a requisition was made to acquire the patta lands to an extent of Ac.400.00 guntas of Jallpalli village, Kamanpur Mandal for the purpose of mining operation, and in the said process, the Land Acquisition Officer passed two separate awards on 03-08-1981 and 29-10-1982, whereas the claimants approached before the Civil Court for enhancement of market value, and after series of litigations, the matter was referred to Senior Civil Judge Court, Manthani under Section 18 of the Act, which was numbered as O.P.No.20 of 2012, and during pendency of the OP proceedings, the claimant Sri Muthyam Agaiah died and claimants/respondent Nos.5 and 6 were impleaded as Legal Representatives of the deceased claimant/pattedar and were brought on record as per the orders in I.A.No.122/2018 dated 21- 12-2018, whereas the petitioner and respondent Nos.3, 4, 7, 8 and 11 neither appeared at any point of time nor impleaded as legal representatives during the proceedings in O.P.No.20 of 2012. 20. Subsequently, at the request of the parties, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat for compromise and settlement. 20. Subsequently, at the request of the parties, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat for compromise and settlement. Accordingly, the Lok Adalat, upon hearing the parties, passed an award on 17-06-2019 in terms of the compromise memo filed by the parties by enhancing the market value at the rate of 50,500/- per acre over and above the market value paid by the Land Acquisition Officer for all group of lands with 30% solatium, that in compliance of the award dated 17-06-2019 passed in O.P.No.20/2012, the respondent No.10 Company deposited the entire amount of Rs.1,18,70,252/- vide Demand Draft No.201671 dated 17-08-2019 before the concerned Court. 21. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.10 further contends that the Lok Adalat award was complied with by depositing the amount before the concerned Court, and since the litigation pertains to the family members, the respondent-Company is no way connected with the issues pertaining to the family of the petitioner. 22. Mr.K.Ramakotaiah, learned counsel representing Mr.A.Jagan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.121, 294 and 380 of 2017 dated 21-08-2017, wherein it was held that the award obtained by fraud, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not barred, therefore, if the Lok Adalat award is obtained by playing fraud on the petitioner, he is entitled to oppose the Execution Petition besides availing any other remedy to seek invalidation of award. 23. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Gaddagunti Rajapathi and others Vs. State of Telangana and others , [ 2023 (4) ALD 205 (TS) (DB)] wherein it was held that the disputed questions of facts cannot be adjudicated in the Writ Petition including the applicability of the award of the Lok Adalat in respect of the property pending before the trial Court. 24. We have given our earnest consideration to the contentions advanced by the leaned counsel appearing for the parties, and perused the record. 25. It is settled position of law that a Lok Adalat award, which resolves disputes through mediation, is legally equivalent to a civil suit decree and is final and binding on all parties. An ex-parte decree on the other hand, is a judgment made without presence or participation of one/any party/parties. 25. It is settled position of law that a Lok Adalat award, which resolves disputes through mediation, is legally equivalent to a civil suit decree and is final and binding on all parties. An ex-parte decree on the other hand, is a judgment made without presence or participation of one/any party/parties. While a Lok Adalat award is a consensual settlement, an ex-parte decree is a decision made in the absence of one party. 26. Section 19 (5)(i) read with Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’) permits a case to be referred to Lok Adalat and the Lok Adalat to settle the case. Section 20 (4) of the Act mandates Lok Adalat to observe and abide by the principles of justice, equity, fair play and other legal principles. Therefore, the presence of all the parties to the original proceedings before the Lok Adalat is mandatory. 27. Coming to the facts of the present case, the primary contention of the petitioner is that the 2 nd respondent passed the impugned compromise decree, which has been obtained by playing fraud, cannot be enforced. As per the contentions and pleadings placed before this Court, the right of the petitioner does not establish with respect to the claim as well as his relationship with the 6 th respondent as a son. 28. On perusal of the pleadings and counter-affidavits filed by respondent Nos.5, 6 and 10 categorically speaks that the petitioner is not the son of respondent No.6. Further, the petitioner failed to establish the contention of fraud and misrepresentation, which is the primary criterion for entertaining the Writ Petition challenging the Lok Adalat award. 29. Section 19 of the Act deals with organization of Adalat. Sub-section (5) is relevant to the present case. It reads as under: “ Section 19 (5) : A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive 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 and is not brought before, any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organized; 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.” 30. A bare reading of the above provision makes it clear that a Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of a pending case. According to Section 19 of the Act, the Lok Adalat can pass an award bounded by the reliefs claimed by the parties to the lis and that the Lok Adalat is not having power or jurisdiction to pass award beyond the scope of the relief/s claimed in the suit. The Lok Adalat has to confine the award to the relief/s as sought by the parties to the lis. 31. Further, the petitioner, who is claiming to be the son of the 6 th respondent has failed to establish his case, including all the contentions raised by him. Further, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner has no relevance to the present case. 32. There may be cases where a third party is meted out with injustice at the behest of two or more conniving and colluding parties, who might have obtained an award of Lok Adalat by fraud or misrepresentation only to defeat the rights of such third party. In such cases within a reasonable period such third party may maintain a writ petition. But, there should be prima facie evidence of fraud or misrepresentation or collusion in obtaining the award of Lok Adalat. Even if such allegations are made and the question involves complicated questions of fact requiring voluminous evidence, third party should be left to seek remedy in a civil court rather than preferring extraordinary remedy under Article 226 of Constitution. 33. When the petitioner is pleading fraud and misrepresentation, the burden of proof lies on the petitioner, who is challenging the award, to not only prove that the award was procured by playing such fraud and misrepresentation through concrete evidence, but also the relationship of son and father to substantiate his claim for setting aside the award. Thereafter, the petitioner has to satisfy the ingredients of limitation aspect too. 34. We further observe that even assuming the contentions of the petitioner that he is the son claiming right over his father’s property, we are unable to appreciate the conduct of petitioner in fighting against his father. Thereafter, the petitioner has to satisfy the ingredients of limitation aspect too. 34. We further observe that even assuming the contentions of the petitioner that he is the son claiming right over his father’s property, we are unable to appreciate the conduct of petitioner in fighting against his father. The responsibility of a son towards his father must be by sharing all the duties of each other more particularly, the son is duty bound to respect and look after the welfare and wellbeing of his parents. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that, even assuming the plea of the petitioner as the son of the Respondent No. 6 is true, he has not discharged his duties as a responsible son. 35. Therefore, the petitioner has to invariably establish his claim that the settlement /award is subjected to by way of misrepresentation and fraud, which this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be gone into. The petitioner should establish the alleged fraud and misrepresentation before the competent Civil Court by way of adducing concrete evidence, and prove his contentions by way of appropriate proceedings, and thereafter the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the award before a competent forum. Without establishing the fraud and misrepresentation, the petitioner has no absolute right to challenge the award on the ground of alleged fraud and misrepresentation. 36. In view of the law laid down by this Court and the Apex Court as well as peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to set aside the award passed by the Lok Adalat. 37. In any event, the petitioner has failed to establish the fraud and misrepresentation for obtaining Lok Adalat award, thereby this Court has no reason to entertain the present Writ Petition. It is made clear that since the petitioner is not a party to the Lok Adalat award, it is not binding on him, but it is binding on the parties to the Lok Adalat award only. 38. I.A.No.1 of 2021 in I.A No. 1 of 2020 in W.P.No.6244 of 2020 is allowed. Consequently, W.P.No.6244 of 2020 is dismissed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated and all connected applications are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.