The Telangana High Court has ruled that parties who receive and retain sale consideration cannot subsequently challenge a Lok Adalat award on allegations of fraud without establishing sufficient grounds. A Division Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Renuka Yara delivered the ruling while dismissing a challenge to a settlement concerning a ₹1 crore land transaction. The Court also examined whether the award was invalid because it lacked a separate compromise document and whether the Lok Adalat had the required pecuniary jurisdiction.
Background
The agreement dated October 31, 2011, valued the land at ₹1 crore. The judgment records that the purchaser paid ₹85 lakh to Ganga Raju, with the remaining ₹15 lakh payable upon registration of the sale deed. The Lok Adalat subsequently recorded a settlement requiring execution of the deed within two months.
After Ganga Raju’s death, his wife and daughter received a further ₹30 lakh in payments connected with the land transaction. They later challenged the award, alleging fraud and questioning the signature and jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat.
The Bench emphasised that allegations of fraud must contain specific details rather than general assertions. It observed:
“It is well settled that fraud must specifically be pleaded with particulars and the person alleging fraud must specifically plead as to the who, what, where, when and how of fraud.”
The Court also found that the petitioners had admitted Ganga Raju’s signature on the award in their earlier civil proceedings. It rejected their objection that a separate, signed compromise document was mandatory, explaining that the settlement could be recorded directly in the Lok Adalat award.
On jurisdiction, the Bench clarified that the statutory monetary limit cited by the petitioners applied to Permanent Lok Adalats, not ordinary Lok Adalats resolving disputes through settlement.
The Court concluded:
“The present Writ Petition was filed 10 years after the impugned Award; the petitioners have not taken this objection to pecuniary jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat in the Writ Petition.”
Finding no sufficient legal or factual grounds to invalidate the award, the Bench dismissed the writ petition along with connected applications.
It also ordered that there would be no costs.
Case Details
- Case Title: Smt. M. Nagalakshmi and Another v. The Chairman, Mandal Legal Services Committee, Cyberabad and Five Others
- Case Number: Writ Petition No. 16457 of 2026
- Judge: Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Renuka Yara
- Decision Date: October 13, 2026
