SHRI RAHEES AHMED S/O NASIRUDDIN BAGWAN vs SHRI BASAPPA CHANDRAPPA CHALAWADI

- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6611
CRP No. 100094 of 2025
R

HC-KAR


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD

ST
DATED THIS THE 1 DAY OF JUNE, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100094 OF 2025



BETWEEN:


SHRI RAHEES AHMED
S/O NASIRUDDIN BAGWAN
AGE 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRI AND BUSINESS,
R/O GANDIGWAD 591302,
TQ. KHANAPUR, DIST. BELAGAVI.
…PETITIONER




(BY SRI DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SHRI BASAPPA CHANDRAPPA CHALAWADI,
AGE 68 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O GOLIHALLI,
TQ. KHANAPUR,
DIST. BELAGAVI 591302.
…RESPONDENT



Digitally signed
by ANUSHA V
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka

(BY SRI S.S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI R.M. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)


THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION UNDER SECTION 115 OF
CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COURT OF
THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KHANAPUR IN EP NO.13/2021
DATED 30.08.2025 AS NULL AND VOID AND RESTORE THE
EXECUTION PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6611
CRP No. 100094 of 2025

HC-KAR

THIS CRP HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS
ON 16.04.2026 AND COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER
THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING FROM BANGALORE
BENCH, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

CAV JUDGMENT

Challenging order dated 30.08.2025 passed by Principal
Civil Judge and JMFC, Khanapur ( ‘Executing Court’ , for short)
in Execution Petition no.13/2021, this petition is filed.


2. Sri Dinesh M. Kulkarni, learned counsel for petitioner
submitted, revision petition was by decree holder (‘ DHr’ , for
short) challenging order passed by Executing Court dismissing
execution petition. It was submitted, DHr had earlier filed OS
no.82/2011 against respondent (‘ JDr’ , for short) for specific
performance of agreement of sale dated 10.01.2011 (‘ AoS’ , for
short), in respect of land bearing RS no.162/1A/2 measuring 4
Acres 1 gunta situated at Golihalli village, which ended in
compromise before Lok Adalath on 21.04.2011. As per award,
JDr was to execute registered sale deed in favour of DHr failing
which DHr could get it executed through Court.

- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6611
CRP No. 100094 of 2025

HC-KAR


3. And as JDr failed, Ex.P.no.13/2021 was filed on
30.01.2021. On appearance, JDr filed objections contending
Execution Petition was not maintainable as JDr belonged to ‘SC
community’ and suit property was granted to him by Tahsildar,
Khanapur. Therefore, decree was hit by provisions of Karnataka
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer
of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (‘ PTCL ’ for short). It was
contended, AoS violated PTCL and decree was obtained by
fraud.


4. Hence, Executing Court framed following:
Points:
i. Whether JDrs prove that disputed land is
‘granted land’ as defined in Karnataka
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (PTCL)
Act, 1978 and Rules 1979?

ii. Whether JDrs prove that award passed by this
Court is null and void?

iii. Whether award passed by this Court in OS
no.82/2011 deserves to be executed?

iv. What order?




5. To establish same, JDr deposed as JDW-1 and got
marked Exs.D1 to D13. On consideration, Executing Court
answered points no.1 and 2 in affirmative, point no.3 in

- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6611
CRP No. 100094 of 2025

HC-KAR

negative and point no.4 by dismissing Execution Case as not
maintainable, leading to this revision petition.


6. It was submitted, suit was for specific performance of
AoS. Since, JDr neither disputed AoS nor receipt of
consideration, suit ended in compromise decree before Lok
Adalath. For execution of said compromise decree, Execution
Petition was filed. Though it was opposed on ground that
decree granted against JDr, who belonged to scheduled caste
(‘SC’ for short) was in violation of PTCL, but without even
stating that proceedings were initiated under PTCL. Therefore,
Executing Court erred in dismissing execution case only on
JDr’s objection.


7. It was submitted, application of provisions of PTCL
would arise only on determination whether land in question was
‘granted land’, which cannot be decided by Civil Court, but only
by authorities under PTCL. Therefore, finding of Executing
Court on point no.1 was without jurisdiction especially under
Section 47 of CPC. In support of his submissions, he relied on
decision of this Court in Chowdappa and Ors. v. Chowdappa

- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6611
CRP No. 100094 of 2025

HC-KAR

(deceased) by LRs and Ors. , reported in 2000 (2) Kar LJ
292 .


8. Relying upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Deepa Bhargava and Anr. v. Mahesh Bhargava and Ors. ,
reported in (2009) 2 SCC 294 , it was submitted, Executing
Court cannot decide on nullity of judgment and decree and in
any case, compromise decree before Lok Adalath could be
challenged only in a writ petition. Therefore, impugned order
passed by Executing Court not only exceeded jurisdiction, but
also exercised jurisdiction not vested in it and with material
irregularity calling for interference by this Court. On said
grounds, sought for allowing revision petition.


9. On other hand, Sri SS Hiremath, learned counsel
appearing for Sri RM Hiremath, advocate for JDr opposed
petition. It was submitted, PTCL was special enactment. Section
4(3) of Act provided for overriding effect of PTCL even over
decree/awards passed by Civil Court. Therefore, impugned
order was fully justified.


10. It was submitted, even admitting suit had ended in
compromise decree with due participation of JDr. failure to

- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6611
CRP No. 100094 of 2025

HC-KAR

raise bar under PTCL, was due to fact that PTCL would apply
only after alienation of granted land. Therefore, they had not
yet approached authorities under PTCL and continuation of
Execution proceedings would imminently lead to execution of
sale deed and violation of PTCL. Hence, objections were raised
at ripe time. In support of his submissions, learned counsel
relied upon decisions of this Court in case of
Smt.Mangalagowramma v. State of Karnataka & Ors .
[2018:KHC:21628] and on Smt.Avvamma v. Deputy
Commissioner, D.K. & Ors , reported in 2014 SCC OnLine
Kar. 6787 and sought dismissal of revision petition.


11. In reply, learned counsel for DHr submitted,
decisions relied on by JDr were rendered in course of
proceedings under PTCL and would have no application to facts
of this case.


12. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned order.


13. Thus, point that arises for consideration is:
“Whether Executing Court annulling Lok Adalath
Award as hit by provisions of PTCL is perverse
and calls for interference?”

- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6611
CRP No. 100094 of 2025

HC-KAR


14. At outset, there is no dispute about execution of AoS
by JDr in favour of DHr, filing of suit for specific performance by
DHr and said suit ending in compromise decree before Lok
Adalath. There is also no dispute that JDr failed to act in terms
of decree leading to filing of execution petition. Only in
execution, JDr raised objections about nullity of decree, on two
grounds. Firstly, that decree was hit by PTCL, since JDr
belonged to SC community and suit property was granted to
him by Tahsildar, Khanapur and transfer without previous
sanction from competent authorities was barred. Secondly, on
ground of fraud in obtaining compromise decree.


15. While passing impugned order, Executing Court
rejected allegations of fraud cannot be urged in execution
without challenging compromise decree. It however held JDr as
belonging to SC community as per Ex.D1 - caste certificate and
suit property was granted land as per Ex.D2 - order of
Tahsildar, Khanapur and grant was not for up-set price.
Therefore, suit property was ‘granted land’ under Section 3 (b)
of PTCL and its alienation prohibited under Section 4 of PTCL.
And as decree did not mandate prior permission from

- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6611
CRP No. 100094 of 2025

HC-KAR

Government, decree was hit by PTCL and dismissed Execution
Case.


16. Admittedly, JDr has not yet approached authorities
under PTCL and conclusion about award being hit by Sections 4
(2) and 6 of PTCL is by referring to Exs.D1 and D2. There is no
reference to recitals or terms in Agreement of sale, nor
consideration about its jurisdiction to annul Lok Adalath award.


17. Though, JDr relies on decisions, in Avvamma’s case
(supra), after decree of declaration of title by adverse
possession in Civil Suit, wife of original grantee approached
authorities under PTCL and this Court rejected challenge
against orders of authorities on ground that decree for
declaration of title by adverse possession was not within
mischiefs enumerated under Section 4 of PTCL. Even in
Smt . Mangalagowramma’ s case (supra), proceedings were
initiated under PTCL after passing of compromise decree in suit
for declaration of title and permanent injunction. And based on
material brought on record, authorities under PTCL had
declared compromise decree as null and void for violating PTCL,
which was upheld. But, in instant case, such exercise is sought

- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6611
CRP No. 100094 of 2025

HC-KAR

to be wrested by Executing Court, ignoring fact that decree
under execution was Lok Adalath Award.


18. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dilip Mehta v.
Rakesh Gupta , reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2737 , held:
“8. Since the controversy turns on the nature of
the remedy available against an award or decree
of a Lok Adalat, it is necessary to notice the
statutory scheme. Section 21 and 22E of the LSA
Act are prevalent to understand the same and
have been reproduced hereunder:

“Section 21. Award of Lok Adalat

(1) Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be
deemed to be a decree of a civil court or,
as the case may be, an order of any
other court and where a compromise or
settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok
Adalat in a case referred to it under sub-
section (1) of section 20, the court-fee
paid in such case shall be refunded in the
manner provided under the Court-fees
Act, 1870 (7 of 1870).]

(2) Every award made by a Lok Adalat shall
be final and binding on all the parties to
the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to
any court against the award.

Section 22E. Award of Permanent Lok Adalat to be
final.

(1) Every award of the Permanent Lok Adalat
under this Act made either on merit or in
terms of a settlement agreement shall be
final and binding on all the parties
thereto and on persons claiming under
them.

- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6611
CRP No. 100094 of 2025

HC-KAR

(2) Every award of the Permanent Lok Adalat
under this Act shall be deemed to be a
decree of a civil court.

(3) The award made by the Permanent Lok
Adalat under this Act shall be by a
majority of the persons constituting the
Permanent Lok Adalat.
(4) Every award made by the Permanent Lok
Adalat under this Act shall be final and
shall not be called in question in any
original suit, application or execution
proceeding.

(5) The Permanent Lok Adalat may transmit
any award made by it to a civil court
having local jurisdiction and such civil
court shall execute the order as if it were
a decree made by that court.”

Section 21 of the LSA Act provides that every
award of a Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a
decree of a civil court, that it shall be final and
binding on the parties to the dispute, and that no
appeal shall lie against it. Section 22E, which
deals with awards of a Permanent Lok Adalat,
similarly declares that every award shall be final
and binding on the parties and persons claiming
under them, shall be deemed to be a decree of a
civil court and shall not be called in question in
any original suit, application or execution
proceeding. Both provisions reflect a common
legislative intent that such awards are to attain
finality, are not appealable in the ordinary sense
and are to operate as decrees only for the limited
purpose of execution.

9. This Court has, in a series of decisions,
explained the consequence of this statutory
finality. In State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh
(Supra), it was held that where an award is made
by a Lok Adalat in terms of a settlement between
the parties, it is final and binding and executable
as a decree, and that no appeal lies against it. It
was further held that any challenge to such an
award must be brought before the High Court in

- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6611
CRP No. 100094 of 2025

HC-KAR

proceedings under Articles 226 or 227 of the
Constitution of India and only on limited grounds
such as lack of consent, jurisdictional error or
fraud. In Bhargavi Constructions v. Kothakapu
Muthyam Reddy (Supra), this Court applied the
same principle to a civil suit which sought to
impeach a Lok Adalat award and held that a civil
suit to set aside such an award is not
maintainable and that the only proper remedy is a
writ petition before the High Court.

10. The principle that emerges is that the
statutory finality attached to a Lok Adalat
award leaves no room for an appellate or
plenary civil remedy against the award
treated as a decree. The award may be
executed as a decree, but its validity cannot
be reopened through an ordinary civil suit or
by treating some other civil proceeding as a
vehicle for setting it aside. The only
recognised avenue of challenge is the
constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court,
which is supervisory and exceptional in
nature.

11. Seen in this light, the approach of the
High Court in the present case cannot be
sustained. Once the decree which is sought
to be executed is one that merely embodies a
Lok Adalat award under the LSA Act, the role
of the Executing Court is confined to giving
effect to that award in terms of execution. It
has no authority to annul or set aside the
award itself, or the decree drawn in its
terms, nor can it sit in judgment over the
validity of the compromise on which the Lok
Adalat proceeded. Treating the filing of
objections in such execution as an
“efficacious alternative remedy” for
challenging the award is therefore
inconsistent with the statutory scheme. ”
(Emphasis supplied)

- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6611
CRP No. 100094 of 2025

HC-KAR


19. A distillate of above, would be that as per Sections
21 and 22E of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, Lok Adalath
awards are final, binding and deemed decrees only for
execution purposes and such awards are not appealable and
cannot be challenged in civil suit, but can be challenged on
limited grounds only in a writ petition under Articles 226 or 227
of Constitution of India, 1950. And though Section 47 of CPC
mandates that all questions relating to execution, discharge, or
satisfaction of a ‘decree’, it held same would not apply to Lok
Adalath Award, which are deemed decree only for execution
purposes. Same would cover point for consideration herein. At
same time, lest it be assumed that this Court has shut out JDr
from recourse to PTCL, it is clarified that even after execution
of sale deed by JDr in pursuance of impugned decree, JDr
would not be precluded from invoking jurisdiction of authorities
under PTCL. In such event, both parties would have opportunity
to contest same on all grounds available in law.


20. In view of above, point for consideration is answered
in negative. Consequently, following:
ORDER
(i) Revision Petition is allowed ;

- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6611
CRP No. 100094 of 2025

HC-KAR

(ii) Impugned order dated 30.08.2025 passed by
Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Khanapur, in
Execution Petition no.13/2021 is set-aside;
(iii) Execution Case is restored and shall be
proceeded with in accordance with law.

Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE





CLK/
Ct:VP
List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1