- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39571 WP No. 18096 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.18096 OF 2024 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: A.B. PRABHAKAR S/O A. BORAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O SARJAPURA ROAD, IBBALUR VILLAGE, 3RD CROSS, MINAJES COTTAGE, NO.145/1, BENGALURU-560102. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.6TH, CASKEY SREET, WOODWILL NORTH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA 5012, AUSTRALIA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI K.C. SUDARSHAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, UPPER THUNGA PROJECT, SHIVAMOGGA, DISTRICT SHIVAMOGGA-577201. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, UPPER THUNGA PROJECT, SHIVAMOGGA, DISTRICT, SHIVAMOGGA-577201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HARISHA A.S. AGA FOR R-1; SRI PRASHANTH B.R., ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPROMISE RECORDED ON 13.03.2015 BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (Sr.Dvn.) AND CJM AT SHIVAMOGGA IN EXECUTION CASE Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39571 WP No. 18096 of 2024 NO.59/2011 BY WHICH THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IS CLOSED A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ENTIRE ORDER SHEET IS HEREBY PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-D AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is seeking for the following reliefs: “a) ISSUE Writ of Certiorari or any other writ, direction, or order in the nature to quash the Compromise recorded on 13/03/2015 by the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dvn.) & CJM At: Shivamogga in Execution Case No.59/2011 by which the petition filed by the petitioner is closed. A certified copy of the entire Order sheet is hereby produced as Annexure-D; b) Permit the Petitioner to avail all legal remedies available under Law including filing necessary appeal seeking enhancement of Compensation against the Judgment and Award passed in LAC 111/2004 dated 23/10/2010 passed by the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dvn.) at Shivamogga at Annexure-A. c) GRANT any other or further relief/s which are deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and equity.” - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39571 WP No. 18096 of 2024 2. Heard Sri K. C. Sudarshan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Harisha A.S., learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri Prashanth B.R, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Brief facts of the case: 3. The petitioner was the absolute owner of the land bearing Sy.No.50, measuring 1 acre 37 guntas and Sy.No.62, measuring 4 acres 25 guntas in total, measuring 6 acres 22 guntas situated at Gadikoppa village, Kasba hobli, Shivamogga Taluk and District (‘petition property’ for short). The said land was acquired by respondent No.2 for Upper Thunga Project by issuing preliminary notification dated 21.12.2000, followed by the final notification. The petitioner received compensation under protest and sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘Act’ for short) for enhancement of compensation. The reference was registered as LAC.No.111/2004, in which the Civil Court determined the compensation of `47/- per sq. ft by order dated 23.10.2010. Subsequently, the petitioner filed - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39571 WP No. 18096 of 2024 E.P.No.59/2011. During the pendency of the execution, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat, where, after discussions, a joint memo was filed and accepted, and the execution petition was closed in terms of the settlement. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the compromise recorded before the Lok Adalat on 13.03.2015 was not entered into with his free consent. It is submitted that the petitioner was not personally present before the Lok Adalat or the Court on that date. Hence, the compromise and closure of the execution petition are vitiated and unsustainable in law. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents in support of statement of objections submits that the settlement before the Lok Adalat was entered into by the petitioner’s counsel in the presence of the counsel for the respondent, pursuant to a joint memo. As per the said memo, the petitioner agreed to receive `99,90,000/- in full and final settlement of his claim. The amount was duly deposited and the matter was lawfully disposed of. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39571 WP No. 18096 of 2024 6. It is further submitted that the petitioner had subsequently filed M.F.A.No.5625/2016 before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation. During the hearing, respondent No.2 pointed out that the matter was already settled before the Lok Adalat, rendering the appeal not maintainable. Consequently, the petitioner withdrew the appeal on 13.01.2020 without reserving liberty to challenge the Lok Adalat settlement. It is also pointed out that the petitioner later filed another E.P.No.128/2018, contending that the judgment debtor-respondent No.2 had delayed payment to the agreed amount and sought further compensation. In the said petition, the petitioner himself referred to the joint memo dated 13.03.2015, thereby admitting the fact of settlement. Hence, his present contention that he was unaware of the compromise is clearly tenable. 7. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39571 WP No. 18096 of 2024 8. On careful examination of the records, E.P.No.59/2011 was referred to the Lok Adalat and disposed of based on the joint memo dated 13.03.2015, whereby the petitioner agreed to receive `99,90,000/- in full and final settlement. It is not in dispute that the petitioner filed M.F.A.No.5625/2016 for enhancement of compensation and subsequently withdrew it, without liberty to question the joint memo. The petitioner’s subsequent conduct in filing E.P.No.128/2018, wherein he acknowledged the existence of the joint memo and sought further compensation on the ground of delayed deposit, clearly establishes that the petitioner was full aware of the compromise. This plea of lack of consent or knowledge is contrary to the record and cannot be accepted. 9. In E.P.No.128/2018, the statement made by the petitioner is as under: “xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx Previous application if any with date and result Ex.59/2011 was closed on 13.03.2015 based on a joint memo 13.03.2015 wherein the JDR has agreed to pay - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39571 WP No. 18096 of 2024 Rs.99,90,000/- in full and final satisfaction of the claim within 3 months from the date of the disposal namely 13.03.2015. It was also made clear in the event of the judgment debtor failing to deposit the amount within three months, decree holder was made entitled to bring fresh execution for the entire balance amount. The JDR has deposited Rs.99,90,000/-, on 22.06.2016 much after the expiry of three months. Therefore this Execution is brought, deducting for the entire balance amount, deducting the payments already made.” 10. From the above, it is clearly evident that the petitioner has categorically admitted that a joint memo dated 13.03.2015 was filed by the petitioner's counsel and the judgment debtor-respondent No.2, wherein the respondent agreed to pay `99,90,000/- in full and final settlement of the petitioner’s claim. The subsequent execution petition was filed only on the limited ground that the judgment debtor- respondent No.2 has failed to deposit the amount within three months, and therefore, the petitioner sought further compensation on account of delay. Having admitted the existence of the joint memo, the petitioner cannot now turn around and contend before this Court that he was unaware - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39571 WP No. 18096 of 2024 of the compromise or that he was not personally present at the time of its execution. 11. The compromise having been recorded before the Lok Adalat in the presence of the petitioner’s counsel and having been acted upon by the petitioner, cannot now he reopened in this writ petition. The petitioner, having voluntarily entered into the settlement before the Lok Adalat, is estopped from taking a contrary stand in the present proceedings, which is in consistent with his own admission is made in E.P. No.128/2018. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER The writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4