Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Boddu Peddiraju vs Tirumani Anjaneyulu on 9 January, 2015
Bench: Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, N.V. Ramana
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 291 OF 2015
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 23722 of 2014)
BODDU PEDDIRAJU Appellant(s)
VERSUS
TIRUMANI ANJANEYULU AND ORS Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
This appeal has been preferred by appellant against the judgment and decree dated 2nd June, 2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, for the State of Telengana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Second Appeal No. 1075 of 2006. By the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the second and appeal and in effect affirmed the orders passed by the appellate and trial court.
Taking into consideration the nature of the dispute, on 12 th September, 2014 this Court referred the matter to the Co-ordinator, Mediation Centre of Supreme Court of India. Parties appeared before the mediation centre and had reached an amicable settlement. The Supreme Court Mediation Centre has filed a Mediation Report dated 14th October, 2014 which reads as follows: Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Neeta Sapra Date: 2015.01.22 16:35:47 IST
“The parties have agreed to settle their Reason: dispute, which is subject matter before this Hon’ble Court, on the terms and conditions mentioned in the draft of Settlement Agreement, which is enclosed herewith as Annexure-A. 2 -2- During the mediation proceedings, it is brought to the knowledge of the mediator that – G.O. Ms. No. 50, Agriculture Department dated 08.01.1963, framing rules for regulation and control of fishing operations is Kolleru lake.
The said rules were framed in exercise of powers under Section 6 of the Indian fisheries Act, 1897. As per Rule 3 of the said Rules, no person shall erect ‘Valakattu (a row of stakes for fixing fishing nets) within a distance of less than one mile from any one of the existing Valakattus, above or below the stream. But however, the said rule was amended by G.O. Ms. No. 5, dated 17.01.2002, reducing the distance from one mile to one kilometre.’ It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that same is not applicable in the present case. However, the counsel for the respondent submitted that the same is applicable in the present case.
However, the parties have amicably decided to settle their dispute which was pending before the Court for long, on the terms and conditions settled between them which are enclosed herewith. The draft site map is enclosed herewith as Annexure-B. In the circumstances, stated herein above, necessary directions are required from this Hon’ble Court. With this report the case file is being submitted before this Hon’ble Court.” Alongwith the report, the Supreme Court Mediation Centre has also produced a Draft Terms and Conditions of the Settlement Agreement. The learned counsel for the parties submits that the Draft Terms and Conditions of the Settlement Agreement alongwith Annexure I plan can be treated as final Terms and Conditions of Settlement Agreement with minor additions at 4th and 9th line of paragraph of the Draft Terms and Conditions of the Settlement 3 Agreement. It is stated that after the words ”present ‘AB’ marked Valakattu” and the words “stake nets” the words “25” should be added and therefore it should be read as “present ‘AB’ marked Valakattu 25 (stake nets)”.
Similarly, in the 9th line after the words, “marked as ‘X’” the sentence “on the either side of the N.T.R. foundation stone” should be added thereby the 8th and 9th line be read as, “The ad-measurement must be from existing Valakattu poles marked as ‘X’ on the either side of the N.T.R. foundation stone”. The rest of the terms and conditions as mentioned therein alongwith the map enclosed with the settlement agreement to be accepted. As the aforesaid submission has been made by both the learned counsel for both parties, we direct that the final Terms and Conditions of the Settlement Agreement be read as follows:
“The parties have agreed to settle the disputes between them which is subject matter before this Hon’ble Court, for ever on the following terms and conditions:-
1. At present ‘AB’ marked Valakattu is 240 meters away from ‘X’ marked Valakattu. The representatives of both petitioners and respondents in the presence of their respective counsel have amicably agreed that the present ‘AB’ marked Valakattu 25 (stake nets) of the petitioners herein will be shifted at a distance of minimum 800 meters away from ‘X’ marked Valakattu towards Navarsapuram Valakattu. The distance of 800 meters from ‘X’ marked Valakattu will be considered as on both sides of river Vasista.
The ad-measurement must be from existing Valakattu poles marked as ‘X’ on the either side of the N.T.R. foundation stone. Further the petitioners will have all fishing rights at ‘AB’ Valakattu which is being shifted to 800 meters away from ‘X’ marked Valakattu and 4 further agreed that the respondents will never object or obstruct the fishing rights of the petitioners herein. Similarly petitioners will not object respondent’s further right at ‘X’ Valakattu.
2. It is also agreed that parties will approach the Mandal Surveyor, Narsapuram Taluk, District West Godawari to determine the distance of above said 800 meters. The existing Valakattu at AB shall be shifted within four weeks from the date of passing of the order by the Hon’ble Court.
3. The parties have further agreed to withdraw/dismiss/quash all pending civil and criminal cases against each other.
4. The present settlement is subject to existing statute regulations/G.O. passed under Indian Fisheries Act and/or any other Act.
5. The petitioners herein will compensate the respondents the cost of litigation throughout to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- which amount will be handed over to the respondents by way of DD by the petitioners to the Advocate of the respondents at the time of passing final order by this Hon’ble Court.
6. The draft map of the spot agreed between the parties is annexed herewith as Annexure-1.” Annexure-1 attached with the said Terms and Conditions of the Settlement Agreement be treated as part of the aforesaid agreement.
Learned counsel for the appellant handed over a draft issued by Andhra Bank, Narsapur Branch, Narsapur, No. 166366 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in the name of Tirumani Anjaneyulu towards litigation cost in terms of settlement to the learned counsel for the respondent for onwards transmission to the respondent. 5 In view of the Agreement reached between the parties, we set aside the Judgment and decree passed by Trial Court, Appellate Court and Second Appellate Court and dispose of the appeal in Terms and Conditions of the Settlement Agreement as shown above.
…..............................J. ( SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA ) ….............................J. ( N.V. RAMANA ) NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 09, 2015
6
ITEM NO.204 COURT NO.4 SECTION XIIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 23722/2014
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 02/06/2014 in SA No. 1075/2006 passed by the High Court of A.P. at Hyderabad) BODDU PEDDIRAJU Petitioner(s) VERSUS TIRUMANI ANJANEYULU AND ORS Respondent(s) (With appln(s) for permission to file additional documents and interim relief and office report) (For final disposal) Date : 09/01/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA For Petitioner(s) Mr. V.V.S. Rao, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Venkateswara Rao Anumolu,Adv. Mr. Prabhakar Parnam, Adv.
Mr. Vijayshree Pattanayak, Adv. Mr. Medi Yadaiah, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Guntur Prabhakar,Adv.
Ms. Prerna S., Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal stands disposed of in terms of signed order.
(Neeta) (Suman Jain)
Sr. P.A. COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)