Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The appellant immediately filed R.A.No.24/2017 challenging the FDP proceedings along with an application seeking condonation of delay. The First Appellate Court rejected the application for condonation of delay and consequently dismissed R.A.No.24/2017.

3. During the course of these proceedings, since it was submitted at the hands of the respondents that no injustice was meted out to the appellant, nevertheless, therefore both the learned counsels, on instructions from their respective clients agreed for a fresh survey and report to be submitted at the hands of the Assistant Director of Land Records (ADLR). Consequently, this Court, directed the ADLR to conduct a survey in the presence of the parties and in terms of the memorandum of instructions filed by the learned counsels for both the parties.

4. The ADLR conducted a survey in the presence of the parties on 24.06.2020 and has submitted a report along with a sketch.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as could be seen from the report of the ADLR, the division suggested by the Court Commissioner during the FDP proceedings could not be adhered to since it was found that such a division would not enure to the benefits of any of the parties. Therefore, the parties by consent have divided the property as shown in the survey sketch filed by the ADLR. It is submitted that in terms of the said report it could be seen that the area for residential property has been divided in a manner so as to have a road on the extreme west side of the residential property. Towards the eastern side of the property equal divisions in 12 parts have been made so that all the 12 parties could get a portion which could be utilized for construction of houses with the road falling on the western side.

8. Heard the learned counsels and perused the appeal memo and the report submitted by the ADLR before this Court.

9. As could be seen from the report, the ADLR has clearly stated that the portion marked in orange colour in Block No.1 is identified as a house with Mangalore tiles and sheets belongs to the appellant herein. This court has also found out through the learned counsels that the appellant was earlier residing in his in-laws house and other than the house in Block No.1, the appellant does not have any other house.

11. In view of the above, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the appeal in part. Since the parties have amicably settled the dispute regarding the division and allotment of the agricultural properties, the division and allotment of the house properties or sites which is the only issue that remains to be considered, is decided by allotting the Block No.1 in terms of the survey sketch submitted by the ADLR. Block No.1 consists of a house with Mangalore tiles and sheets. Therefore, the said Block No.1 along with the house shall be allotted in favour of the appellant herein. With this the decree drawn in the FDP No.6/2009 also stands modified. The parties are permitted to get the respective kathas effected in terms of the allotment of shares as shown in the survey sketch submitted by the ADLR.