MADEM MUTHAMMA Vs. DHARMULA MANGAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Civil Revision Petition has been directed against order dtd. 10/9/2013 in I.A.No.511 of 2013 in L.A.O.P.No.10 of 2011 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, (hereinafter referred to as 'Court below'), wherein and whereby the application filed by the respondents herein under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Sec. 151 of C.P.C, for recording compromise, was returned. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is preferred.

(2.) In the present case, when the matter was referred to the decision of the Court below under Sec. 30 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'Act of 1894'), claims were made by rival claimants for compensation. In such circumstances, the amounts awarded in respect of such acquired land were deposited in the Court below in terms of Sec. 31 of the Act of 1894. While dispute was pending before the Court below, the rival claimants arrived at a compromise to settle their disputes amicably. In pursuance of such settlement, they filed the present application i.e., I.A.No.511 of 2013 under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Sec. 151 of C.P.C., to record the compromise. The said application was returned by the Court below on the ground that its jurisdiction is ousted on account of judgment of Apex Court in case of Nagarjuna Grameena Bank Vs. Medi Narayana,(2013) 11 SCC 362.

(3.) The impugned order dtd. 10/9/2013, reads as under: