Raichur Land Buyer Gives Up Claim For ₹5 Lakh As Karnataka HC Orders Mutation To Seller’s Sister-In-Law Under Settlement

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Court should accept and record the parties’ joint compromise in the writ petition.

The court held

The Court accepted the joint compromise petition and disposed of the writ petition in its terms.

It also directed

It directed the jurisdictional Tahsildar, Raichur, to enter respondent No. 3’s name in the revenue records for the subject lands within three months of receiving the order. No order as to costs was made.

01Facts

The petitioner sought to quash the Deputy Commissioner’s order rejecting his revision concerning mutation of three agricultural land parcels, and sought a direction to enter his name in the revenue records.

pp. 2–3

The petitioner claimed to have purchased the lands under a registered sale deed; respondent No. 3 objected to mutation, asserting that the lands were joint-family properties and referring to pending civil proceedings.

p. 4

During the writ proceedings, the petitioner and respondent No. 3 filed a joint compromise petition. Under its terms, the petitioner relinquished his claimed rights in favour of respondent No. 3 for Rs. 5,00,000, acknowledged her ownership and possession, and consented to mutation in her name. The parties also undertook to withdraw specified civil suits.

pp. 5–6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Court should accept and record the parties’ joint compromise in the writ petition.

p. 3, 7

ii.2. Whether, in view of the compromise, the Tahsildar should be directed to mutate the subject lands in respondent No. 3’s name.

pp. 6–8

03Law Applied

The compromise petition was presented under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

p. 3

The Court accepted the compromise after finding that its terms were lawful and not opposed to public policy, and after confirming that the parties were present, identified by counsel, and had understood and signed the terms.

p. 7

The petition invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, and the Court disposed of it by recording the compromise and issuing a consequential direction to the jurisdictional Tahsildar.

p. 2, 8

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 151

04Reasoning

The Court did not adjudicate the competing claims to ownership on their merits. Instead, it considered the parties’ settlement, verified their consent and found the terms lawful and consistent with public policy.

p. 7

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, through the Additional Government Advocate, stated that the State had no objection to the parties resolving the revenue dispute amicably.

p. 7

Given the petitioner’s express consent to mutation in respondent No. 3’s name, the Court disposed of the writ petition on the compromise terms and directed the Tahsildar to give effect to them.

p. 6, 8