Sri K S Ramegowda S/O Late R ... vs The Deputy Commissioner
2022 Latest Caselaw 10712 Kant

                           1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF JULY, 2022

                        BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

WRIT PETITION No. 6230 OF 2012 [KLR-RR/SUR]

BETWEEN:

1.   SRI K S RAMEGOWDA
     S/O LATE R SHIVANANJEGOWDA
     AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS

     SINCE DECEASED
     NOW REPRESENTED BY:

1(a) SMT.CHETANA.R
     AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
     R/AT NO.380, 42ND CROSS
     9TH MAIN, JAYANAGAR 5TH BLOCK
     BANGALORE -560 041

1(b) DR.INDUMATHI.R
     AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
     R/AT 57/12, EAGLE RIDGE ROAD
     BETTENDORF, IA-52722
     AND ALSO AT
     R/AT NO.156/19, 10TH MAIN ROAD
     BSK 1ST STAGE, SRI NAGAR
     BANGALORE -560 050

1(c) SMT.ROOPA.R
     AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
     R/AT NO.461/8, 12TH MAIN,
     M.C.LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR,
     BANGALORE-560 040
                            2




1(d) SRI SUNIL KUMAR.R
     AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
     R/AT NO.156/19, 10TH MAIN ROAD
     BSK 1ST STAGE, SRI NAGAR
     BANGALORE - 560 050

2.   SMT. VIJAYAMMA
     W/O K.S. RAMEGOWDA
     AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
     R/AT NO. 156/19,
     10TH MAIN,
     BSK 1ST STAGE,
     SRINAGARA,
     BANGALORE - 560050


                                      ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI H.N.SHASHIDHAR, SR. COUNSEL A/W
SRI SUHAS H S, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
     MANDYA DISTRICT,
     MANDYA

2.   THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
     OF LAND RECORDS,
     PANDAVAPURA SUB-DIVISION,
     PANDAVAPURA
     MANDYA DISTRICT

3.   THE TAHSILDAR
     K.R. PETE, MANDYA DISTRICT

4.   DEVARAJE GOWDA
     S/O AMMATHI DEVARAJEGOWDA
     AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
                            3




5.   SRI. B N RAJEGOWDA
     S/O UGRANARASIMHE GOWDA

     SINCE DECEASED
     NOW REPRESENTED BY :

5(a) SMT.JAYAMMA
     W/O B.N.RAJEGOWDA
     AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS

5(b) MANJEGOWDA
     S/O B.N.RAJEGOWDA
     AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

5(c) B.R.CHANDREGOWDA
     S/O B.N.RAJEGOWDA
     AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

5(d) B.SURESH
     S/O B.N.RAJEGOWDA
     AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

5(e) B.R.SRINIVAS
     S/O B.N.RAJEGOWDA
     AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

     ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
     ANCHEBEERANAHALLI VILLAGE
     KIKKERI HOBLI,
     K R PETE TALUK
     MANDYA DISTRICT


                                     ...RESPONDENTS

[BY SRI SESHU.V, HCGP, FOR R1 TO R3;
    SRI RAJARAM SOORYAMBAIL, FOR R4 AND R5(a) TO (e)]
     THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER DT.31.1.11 IN APPEAL NO.LAND RECORDS/12/06
                                  4



[DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, MYSORE, REVISION APPEAL
NO.52/04-05] VIDE ANNEXUREA TO THE W.P AND ETC.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                            ORDER

1. This writ petition arises out of a proceeding for

conduct of Durast in respect of Sy.No.36, Block Nos.28

and 29. By the impugned order, the Durast done and

the assigning of new Sy.Nos.193 and 194 had been set

aside by the Deputy Commissioner and the matter had

been remanded for a fresh Durast to be conducted by

the Tahasildar.

2. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and

learned counsel for the respondents have filed a

compromise petition today (13.07.2022), which reads as

under:

"1. The above writ petition was filed challenging the order in Appeal No.BHUMAPANA:12/2016 (Revision Case No.52/2014-15) dated 31.01.2011 vide Annexure-A to the writ petition and also for other reliefs as prayed in the writ petition.

2. The well wishers and friends have intervened in the matter and advised to resolve the disputes among the petitioners and the contesting respondent No.4 and LRs of Respondent No.5. Accordingly, both the parties have agreed to settle their dispute amicably under this compromise petition. The above compromise petition is entered into between the parties without there being any coercion, compulsion and on their own free will.

3. It is submitted that with regard to grant of 4 acres of land each to the petitioners 1 and 2 under the grant made by the revenue officials as per the grant order dated 30.06.1966 wherein the Petitioner No.1 was granted 4 acres of land in old Sy.No.36 of Anchebeeranhalli Village, Anegola Post, Kikkeri Hobli, K R Pete Taluk, Mandya District in Block No.2. Similarly, the 2nd petitioner was granted 4 acres of land in the same survey number in Block No.3 of Anchebeeranhalli Village, Anegola Post, Kikkeri Hobli, K R Pete Taluk, Mandya District. The grant certificates were issued on 05.01.1972 in favour of the petitioners herein.

4. As there was dispute about the boundaries, on the request of the petitioners, survey was conducted and Tippani copies were made ready on 10.09.1977. For

various reasons, the same was not issued and in the meanwhile, a dispute arose between the petitioners herein and the Respondents 4 and LRS of Respondent No.5 with regard to land in question. In fact, suits O.S.No.153/1985 and O.S.No.154/1985 was filed by the petitioners herein before the then Court of Munsiff at K.R.Pet for declaration and also permanent injunction against the Respondents 4 and 5 in respect of their granted land. Both the suits came to be dismissed by the Munsiff, K.R.Pet Taluk. A finding was given in the said suits in the judgment and decree dated 12.09.1989 that the plaintiffs/petitioners have not proved their lawful possession. However, for various reasons, the litigations continued by filing writ petitions before this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.16601/1996, Review Petition No.855/1995, CCC No.2374/1997 and W.P.No.31474 75/2004 and other proceedings are also continued before the revenue authorities. Subsequently, when an impugned order was passed vide Annexure-A, the above writ petition was filed. Having regard to the long drawn litigation between the parties, it was decided to resolve the dispute amicably under the following terms and conditions:-

1) The Respondents 4 and 5 have offered to pay Rs.10,00,000/- to the petitioners and accordingly they have drawn 3 demand

drafts in the name of the 2nd petitioner, who is the mother of the Petitioners 1(a) to

(d), the details of which are as under:

(i) DD No.939437 dated 12.07.2022 drawn on Canara Bank for Rs.3,50,000/- drawn on the name of the 2nd petitioner;

(ii) DD No.051827 dated 12.07.2022 drawn on Bank of Baroda for Rs.3,50,000/- drawn on the name of the 2nd petitioner;

(iii) DD No.572663 dated 12.07.2022 drawn on Karnataka Grameen Bank for Rs.3,00,000/- drawn on the name of the 2nd petitioner.

The petitioners have accepted the aforesaid amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) in the form of demand drafts which are handed over today in the Court Hall itself.

2) In consideration of the same, the petitioners have given up their right, title and interest in respect of the grants of 4 acres each in Sy.No.36, Block Nos.2 and 3 granted on 30.06.1996 by the Tahsildar, K.R.Pet in the year 1965-66. The petitioners herein have recognized that the

Respondent No.4 and LRS of Respondent No.5 are in possession and enjoyment of the very same land in new Sy.No.193 and 194 and it is the finding of the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya under the impugned order, Annexure-A that the Respondents 4 and LRS of Respondent No.5 are in possession and enjoyment of the very same land which is claimed by the petitioners under the grant of 1966.

3) The petitioners are no longer claiming any right, title and interest in respect of their land granted in new Sy No.193 & 194 (old Sy.No.36, Block Nos.2 and 3) measuring 4 acres each at Anchebeeranhalli Village, Anegola Post, KikkeriHobli, K R Pete Taluk, Mandya District. These petitioners have no objection to delete their names from the RTCs in Sy.Nos.193 and 194 of Anchebeerana Halli Village, Anegola Post, KikkeriHobli, K R Pete Taluk, Mandya District and the Grant bearing No.DPR 128/1965-66 dated 30.06.1966 may be declared as cancelled.

4) The petitioners henceforth will not interfere with the lands of the respondents 4 and 5 who are in possession and enjoyment and have cultivated and grown coconut trees and also growing paddy and sugarcane in the very same lands earlier

granted in favour of petitioners. The Respondents 4 and legal hairs of Respondent No. 5 henceforth can get the khatha in their names in respect of the lands which are in their possession and enjoyment.

5) The petitioners have no objection for any corrections to be made in the revenue records in favour of the Respondent No.4 and LRS of Respondent No.5 in respect of the lands they are claiming."

3. The learned counsel for the respondents has

handed over three demand drafts of `3,50,000/- each

(Rupees Three Lakh Fifty Thousand only) to petitioner

No.1(d), who has acknowledged the receipt of the same.

4. In view of the above compromise petition, the writ

petition is disposed off as settled out of Court in terms

of the compromise petition.

Sd/-

JUDGE

RK ct: NR