Facts: The original petitioner, Gangaram Rajba Kamble, an illiterate 76-year-old man with 82% permanent physical disability, was the sole owner of a property granted under the "Hadola Inam" scheme. Respondent No. 1 filed a civil suit (R.C.S. No. 47 of 2016) for declaration and injunction against Gangaram and others, claiming the property was ancestral and subject to a prior oral partition. On January 25, 2016, the Trial Court ordered the issuance of summons, yet no summons were served. On January 29, 2016, the matter was referred to a Lok Adalat at the plaintiff's request. A compromise decree was recorded on February 13, 2016, wherein Gangaram allegedly relinquished significant rights. The petitioners (Gangaram's legal heirs) contended that his thumb impression was obtained by misrepresentation on pre-prepared terms while he was under the impression the signatures were for his son's service-related matters.Procedural Posture: The petitioners approached the High Court of Bombay under its writ jurisdiction (Article 227) seeking to set aside the compromise decree passed by the Lok Adalat.Issue: Whether a compromise decree passed by a Lok Adalat can be set aside under writ jurisdiction if it is alleged to have been obtained by fraud, and whether the procedural irregularities in this case constitute such fraud.Holding: Yes, the High Court held that while the scope of interference is limited, a Lok Adalat award obtained by practicing fraud on a party and the court is liable to be set aside.Reasoning: The Court observed that the suit proceeded with "indecent haste". No summons were ever served on the defendants, yet the matter was rushed to Lok Adalat within days of filing. The Court noted a stark contradiction between the revenue records, which showed the petitioner as the sole owner since 1950, and the compromise terms which claimed the property was ancestral. Given the petitioner's illiteracy and extreme disability, the Court found it highly probable that he did not understand the nature of the proceedings. Citing the principle that "fraud unravels everything", the Court determined that the foundation of the settlement was vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation. It reaffirmed that while Lok Adalat awards are generally final, they can be challenged under Article 226 or 227 in cases of "apparent and egregious fraud".