The Telangana High Court recently dismissed a writ petition and upheld a Lok Adalat award which involved the distribution of compensation for acquired land. The petitioner, who claimed to be the son of one of the respondents, had alleged that the compromise decree pertaining to the compensation was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation without his inclusion as a party.
In the order dated September 1, the division bench consisting of Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and Gadi Praveen Kumar noted that the petitioner failed to provide concrete evidence to prove his claims of being the son of the sixth respondent or to substantiate the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation.
“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,” the court stated.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that 29.30 acres of land in Jallipalli village, Peddapalli district, belonged to his grandfather, Agaiah. However, the special deputy collector and Singareni Collieries have since acquired the property and awarded a total compensation of Rs 1.18 crore.
The petitioner claimed that his father, aunt, and uncle conspired to file a lawsuit to divide the money. They then requested a settlement through the Lok Adalat, where they reached an agreement and had an award issued on November 18, 2019, to divide the funds. The petitioner alleged this was done without his knowledge or inclusion in the lawsuit.
While the petition challenged the Lok Adalat award, dated December 18, 2019, the respondents, including the petitioner’s purported father and grandmother, flatly denied the relationship.
‘Burden of proof on petitioner’
The bench emphasised that the burden of proof rested with the petitioner. The judgment stated, “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.”
Story continues below this ad
The bench went further, issuing a strong condemnation of the petitioner’s actions in challenging his own father in court. “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 court remarked.
The judges underscored the moral and societal obligations of a son, stating, “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 well-being of his parents.”
Ultimately, the court found no reason to entertain the writ petition and dismissed it, stating that the petitioner had “failed to establish the fraud and misrepresentation for obtaining Lok Adalat award.”
The court clarified that while the Lok Adalat award is not binding on the petitioner since he was not a party to it, he would need to pursue his claims in a civil court through appropriate proceedings.
