Facts
The petitioners, legal representatives of the original Form No. 7 applicant, challenged the Land Tribunal’s order dated 13 March 2026, which declined to modify its 1981 rejection of the application for occupancy rights over 10 acres 21 guntas in R.S. No. 45.
Source reference: p. 5, paras. 2, 4The Tribunal had found that the land was under the owners’ self-cultivation.
Source reference: p. 5, paras. 2, 4After the landowners sold the entire property to respondent No. 5 in 2024, the petitioners and respondents 2–5 entered into a compromise: respondent No. 5 would retain 6 acres, while the petitioners would receive the remaining 4 acres 21 guntas through a duly registered conveyance.
Source reference: pp. 5–8, compromise paras. 3–6The parties sought the Court’s approval of the settlement.
Source reference: p. 8, compromise para. 9Issues
1. Whether the parties’ compromise could be accepted and recorded in disposing of the writ petition.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 3; p. 10, para. 62. Whether the settlement affected any right or interest of the State or public authority so as to prevent the Court from recording it.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 3; p. 8, compromise para. 8Law Applied
Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits a court to record a lawful compromise between parties and dispose of the proceeding in accordance with its terms.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 1The Court also exercised its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, under which it considered the parties’ settlement and whether it affected public or State interests.
Source reference: pp. 3–4; p. 8, compromise para. 8Reasoning
The Court noted that the Tribunal had rejected the occupancy-rights claim on the basis that the land was under the owners’ self-cultivation and that the land had never vested in the Government; accordingly, it found no State interest created in the land that would make the compromise impermissible.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 3The parties’ settlement resolved their competing claims, allocated the land between respondent No. 5 and the petitioners, and provided for a registered conveyance of the petitioners’ portion.
Source reference: pp. 6–8, compromise paras. 5–6The Court therefore regarded the compromise as lawful and valid.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 3Holding
The Court accepted and recorded the compromise and disposed of the writ petition on that basis; the compromise petition was made part of the order.
The parties were permitted to approach the competent revenue authorities to record their respective names in accordance with the settlement.
Source reference: p. 10, para. 7The transfer of 4 acres 21 guntas to the petitioners remains subject to execution and registration of the conveyance as agreed.
Source reference: p. 7, compromise para. 6Original Court PDF
SRI. IMAMASAB S/O RAJESAB KOTI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.vsTHE LAND TRIBUNAL
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
