Municipal mutation under a binding compromise decree remains valid despite the property’s omission from the preliminary decree.

The petitioner challenged a Town Municipal Council mutation order dated 28 November 2024 concerning house property No. 3-6-12 at Kasaba, Lingasugur.

She contended that the property was not included in the preliminary decree in O.S. No. 328/2014.

During final-decree proceedings in FDP No. 29/2022, however, the parties—including the petitioner—filed a compromise petition, and the court drew a final decree recording that the petitioner and others waived their rights in the house property in favour of the respondents.

In the connected petition, the petitioner also sought directions for police investigation into complaints alleging that her brothers had demolished the structure during pending proceedings; the police had treated the dispute as civil in nature.

1. Whether the Town Municipal Council’s mutation order, based on the compromise final decree, was liable to be quashed because the house property was not part of the preliminary decree in the partition suit.

2. Whether the police should be directed to investigate the petitioner’s complaints concerning the alleged demolition, notwithstanding the final decree and consequent mutation.

The Court considered the compromise petition filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the final decree drawn upon it; the decree recorded the petitioner’s waiver of rights in the house property and was treated as binding on her.

The Court also considered the precedent Sri Channaveerappa Gowda v. Sri Renukappa Gowda and Others, W.P. No. 34142/2012, decided on 1 April 2014, but held that it did not apply to the facts before it.

Although the petitions invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and the police petition referred to Section 154 CrPC, the Court did not separately set out or apply a broader statutory test under those provisions.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s objection that the property was outside the preliminary decree because, despite that circumstance, she knowingly agreed to include the property in the compromise final-decree proceedings.

The FDP Court accepted the compromise and drew a decree recording her waiver; the High Court therefore considered that decree binding and found no basis to invalidate the mutation made on its footing.

As to the police petition, the Court relied on its conclusion that the mutation in favour of the respondents was based on the final decree and held that the connected petition likewise lacked merit.

It granted no relief concerning the mutation, police investigation, or other requested directions.