Karnataka High Court
Sri Narayanappa vs Deputy Commissioner on 19 July, 2024
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:28157
WP No. 16072 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 16072 OF 2019 (SCST)
BETWEEN:
SRI NARAYANAPPA
S/O LATE DODDA NARASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/O BUTTIVARAPALLI VILLAGE,
MITTEMARI HOBLI
BAGEPALLI TALUK
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VISHWANATH R HEGDE., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT
CHICKBALLAPUR-562101.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
Digitally signed CHICKBALLAPUR SUB DIVISION
by CHICKBALLAPUR-562101.
NARAYANAPPA
LAKSHMAMMA
Location: HIGH
3. SRI NARAYANAPPA
COURT OF S/O THIPPANNA
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
4. SRI LAKSHMINARASIMHAPPA
S/O THIPPANNA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS 3 & 4
R/AT SOLAMAKALAHALLI VILLAGE
MITTEMARI HOBLI
BAGEPALLI TALUK
CHICKBALLAPUR DISRICT-562101.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:28157
WP No. 16072 of 2019
(BY SRI. T.K. RAJAGOPALA., ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4;
SMT. SAVITHRAMMA., AGA FOR R1 & R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION
QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 06.08.2014 IN PTCL (GU)
NO.188/2008-09 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-B)
AND THE ORDER DATED 25.02.2019 IN R.A.NO.SCST/18/2014-15
PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-C) AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL FOR NON-
PROSECUTION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
1. Issue a Writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing the order dated 06.08.2014 in PTCL (GU) No.188/2008-09 passed by the 2nd Respondent (Annexure-B) and the order dated 25.02.2019 in R.A.No.SCST/18/2014-15 passed by the 1st Respondent (Annexure-C).
2. Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to pass under the circumstances of the case including costs of this petition.
2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the land in Sy.No.141, New No.141/P3 measuring 6 acres situated in Yerralakkenahalli Village, Somenhalli Hobli, Gudibanda Taluk, having purchased the same under a registered Will dated 06.11.1991. -3-
NC: 2024:KHC:28157 WP No. 16072 of 2019 Respondents No.3 and 4 claiming to be the members of the Scheduled Caste and grandchildren of Sri.Poojappa, who had executed the Will in favour of the petitioner had alleged that the granted land had been alienated under a Will and as such, proceedings are initiated under Section 4 of the PTCL Act, 1978. The petitioner had also filed a suit in O.S.No.97/2009 before the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC., Gudibanda for declaration that he is the owner of the land in question and for permanent injunction. In the said suit, the petitioner and respondents No.3 and 4 entered into a compromise on 16-03-2024 along with the family members of respondents No.3 and 4 and in terms of the compromise, it was agreed that the petitioner would be entitled to 2 acres 20 guntas and respondents No.3 and 4 along with family members would be entitled to 3 acres 20 guntas in the aforesaid survey number.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:28157 WP No. 16072 of 2019
3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of said judgment, the parties have acted upon and the said settlement is binding on the parties and as such, the proceedings which have been initiated under Section 4 of the PTCL Act could not remain continued and as such, the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner in the said proceedings on 25.02.2019 would not survive in view of the compromise which has been entered into.
4. The learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 would submit that the suit is a civil proceeding as regards the ownership and the present proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner is under Section 4 of the PTCL Act seeking for resumption of the land on the basis of violation of the term of grant and as such, his submission is that the compromise which has been entered into in O.S.No.97/2009 would have -5- NC: 2024:KHC:28157 WP No. 16072 of 2019 no bearing insofar as the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner.
5. Heard Sri.Vishwanath R.Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.T.K.Rajagopala, learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 and Smt.Savithramma, learned AGA for respondents No.1 and 2 and perused papers.
6. The contention of learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 is that the compromise entered in the suit would not have any bearing on the proceedings initiated under Section 4 of the PTCL Act. I am unable to accept the said submission. The suit was one for declaration of title and in the said suit, the parties have arrived at a settlement whereunder the petitioner would be entitled to 2 acres 20 guntas and respondents would be entitled to 3 acres 20 guntas. Having entered into such a compromise before a Court of law, it would not be available for the respondents to now contend before this Court that -6- NC: 2024:KHC:28157 WP No. 16072 of 2019 the compromise entered in the suit would have no bearing insofar as the proceedings under Section 4 of PTCL Act. Such a contention in my considered opinion would not only be an abuse of process of Court but also fraudulent contention being taken. Though this Court could initiate action against the respondents in respect of the above, taking into consideration that the respondents belong to marginal class of society, I refrain from doing so. The compromise which has been entered into in O.S.No.97/2009 would equally apply to the proceedings under Section 4 of PTCL Act and/or any other proceedings under the PTCL Act inasmuch as a compromise entered into before a Court upon legal advice is binding on the parties and no party can resile from any obligation undertaken in a compromise petition before a Court in furtherance of which a decree has been drawn.
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:28157 WP No. 16072 of 2019
7. A perusal of the compromise would also indicate that in terms of Para 4 of the compromise, the parties have agreed to withdraw all the proceedings filed between themselves, which would include the proceedings under the PTCL Act. Having entered into such an agreement and a compromise decree having been drawn up, it would not lie now for the respondents to resile from such a contention and continue to prosecute the matter.
8. In this particular case, the petitioner being entitled to 2 acres 20 guntas, respondents being entitled to 3 acres 20 guntas, the respondents have also derived benefits under the compromise and therefore, it is not available for the respondents to resile from such a compromise.
9. In that view of the matter, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The Writ Petition is allowed, a certiorari is issued.-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:28157 WP No. 16072 of 2019
ii) The order dated 06.08.2014 in PTCL (GU) No.188/2008-09 passed by respondent No.2 at Annexure-B and the order dated 25.02.2019 in R.A./SCST/18/2014-15 passed by respondent No.1 at Annexure-C is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE PRS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4