AMRUTA PUROHITANI Vs. JOGESH CHANDRA HOTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BETWEEN the parties a large number of arbitration cases were pending before the Arbitrator, Hirakud Land Organisation, Sambalpur. They entered into a compromise. The arbitration cases were disposed of in terms of the compromise. They are not the subject matter of the civil revision or the miscellaneous appeal. In paragraph 2 of the compromise petition filed before the Arbitrator, the compensation payable to the estate of Mst. Jema Purohitani in respect of submerged Bhogra and rayati lands in village Bausen was divided in certain proportions. The miscellaneous appeal is filed challenging this division. As the subject matter of the compromise in this paragraph consists of moveable property, there was no necessity for registration land the compromise is held to be genuine land valid. The terms are enforceable. Mr. Sinha was, therefore, right, in making a concession that it was difficult to support the miscellaneous appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. There would be no order as to costs of this appeal.

(2.) SO far as the civil revision is concerned, the controversy centres round the terms of the compromise in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the petition. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder:

(3.) IT is the common case of the parties that the unsubrnerged lands of mouza bausen are the subject matter of dispute in T. S. 41/62. Mr. Sinha contends that as the value of the unsubrnerged lands in mouza Bausen is about Rs. 4200 the compromise was compulsorily registrable and the suit could not have been compromised on the basis of the compromise petition filed in the arbitration cases on 24-7-63.