MAHADEVAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has called in question the order passed by the authorities to declare the order dated 28.11.1996 passed by the 3rd respondent and also to declare the order dated 21.09.2010 passed by the 2nd respondent as illegal and quash the same. Suffice it to note that the petitioner's father one Late Madaiah was granted 4 acres 24 guntas of land in Sy.No.46 (Old Sy.No.66) of Manuganahalli village, Saragur Hobli, H.D.Kote Taluk, Mysore District. The said grant was on 01.11.1938. Though there is some dispute as to the date of the grant the petitioner's father sold the land in question in favour of the 4th respondent on 24.01.1958. After coming into force of the PTCL Act, the petitioner made an application seeking resumption of the land. The said application was rejected and it has attained finality. The petitioner filed a second application on 28.11.1996 and the said application was rejected as against which the petitioner was before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority has confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Hence, these petitions.

(2.) I have heard Mr.T.N.Raghupathy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(3.) WHEN the matter is taken up, an application is filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure wherein both the petitioner as well as the purchaser have settled the matter amicably. Both the petitioner as well as the respondent have put their left thumb impression as well as their respective signatures on the compromise petition before the Court and identified by their respective counsel. The compromise petition is also signed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondents.