BASANTH TILES Vs. PARASHURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals have been preferred being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hubli, in R. A. No. 56 of 1992 wherein while reversing the finding of the Trial Court, the suit of the plaintiff has been decreed by allowing the appeal and directing 2nd defendant to execute registered conveyance deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit land by receiving a consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/ -.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed a suit against the Government of Karnataka represented by its Chief secretary, Joint Director of Industries and Commerce and the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad who are defendants 1 to 3. Defendants 4 to 6 are Basant Tiles and its partners to whom the 2nd respondent is said to have conveyed the suit property contrary to the compromise entered into between the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant before this Court in the writ petition.

(3.) PLAINTIFF was said to be the owner of property bearing Sy. No. 16/1a+1b/1a measuring 2. 16 acres of Jangamarakoppa Village, Hubli. The said property was said to. be purchased by the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 16-6-1995 from its previous owners/trustees of Assar masjid Committee, Hubli. The State Government is said to have started acquisition proceedings of the aforesaid proceedings for utilisation of land to the 2nd defendant and award was also passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Dharwad on 28-8-1967 and also possession of the above land was taken by 2nd defendant. The value of the land was fixed at Rs. 2,200/- per acre. Plaintiff being aggrieved by the acquisition/award of the Assistant Commissioner, has preferred a writ petition in W. P. No. 366 of 1969 before this Court. During the pendency of the writ petition, a compromise memo has been filed by the plaintiff and respondents 3 and 4 therein. In the said writ petition, petitioner 1 was the original owner Assar Masjid Trust Committee, 2nd petitioner was the plaintiff viz. , Parashuram M. Shinde. The respondents were the State of mysore, Assistant Commissioner, Dharwad and the 3rd and 4th respondents are Industrial Estate establishment by its Managing Director, Bangalore and Administrative Officer, Industrial estate, Hubli respectively. The compromise was entered into between the petitioners and the 3rd and 4th respondents. In the said compromise, as per agreement respondents 3 and 4 agreed to retain 1 acre to the North-South abutting on the western side of Sy. Nos. 16/2 and 16/3 out of Sy. No. 16/1a + 1b/1a and reconveying of the remaining 1. 16 acres to the 2nd petitioner. As per the compromise, the area of 1. 00 acre was retained by respondents 3 and 4 for their proposed administrative building with a condition that if they do not need the area of 1. 00 acre retained by them, the said area will be reconveyed to the 2nd petitioner on a condition that the same area is used by him for industrial purpose in conformity with the developed area of respondents 3 and 4 therein.