- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7334 WP No. 103468 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 103468 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. KAPPATHAPPA S/O. SHIVALINGAPPA HANCHINAL, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. EMPLOYEE, R/O. PLOT NO.112, RAJEEV NAGAR, 2ND STAGE, UNKAL, HUBBALLI-580031. 2. SMT. DEEPA W/O. KAPPATHAPPA HANCHINAL, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOMEMAKER, R/O. PLOT NO.112, RAJEEV NAGAR, 2ND STAGE, UNKAL, HUBBALLI-580031. 3. SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O. KRISHNAPPA KURADEKAR, AGE: 75 YEARS OCC: RETIRED, R/O. PLOT. NO.106, RAJEEVA NAGAR, 2ND STAGE, UNKAL, HUBBALLI-580031. 4. SRI. SHANTARAM S/O. MAHABALESHWAR HEGDE, AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED, R/O. PLOT. NO.107, RAJEEVA NAGAR, 2ND STAGE, UNKAL, HUBBALLI-580031. 5. SMT. ROOPA D/O. VASANTA HURALIKOPPI, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOME MAKER, R/O. PLOT. NO.111, RAJEEVA NAGAR, 2ND STAGE, UNKAL, HUBBALLI-580031. 6. SRI. KAVITA LEENA VISHAL JADA W/O. VISHAL JADAV, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. PLOT. NO.113, RAJEEVA NAGAR, 2ND STAGE, UNKAL, HUBBALLI-580031. VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7334 WP No. 103468 of 2025 7. SRI. SUNITA W/O. VARUN LAKKAANAVAR, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. PLOT. NO.109, RAJEEVA NAGAR, 2ND STAGE, UNKAL, HUBBALLI-580031. 8. SRI. VARUN S/O. ASHOK LAKKANNAVAR, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. PLOT. NO.110, RAJEEVA NAGAR, 2ND STAGE, UNKAL, HUBBALLI-580031. 9. SRI. MRUTHYUNJAYA S/O. SHANMUKAPPA DANDUR, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. PLOT. NO.108, RAJEEVA NAGAR, 2ND STAGE, UNKAL, HUBBALLI-580031. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRAKASH R. BADIGER, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. VINAYAKA S/O. ISHWAR SANKAPALE, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE, R/O. H.NO.102/2, KOLIPETH, MARATHA GALLI, HUBBALLI-580020. 2. HUBBALLI-DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBBALLI-580020. 3. ZONAL OFFICE NOMBER 5, HUBBALLI DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBBALLI-580020. 4. THE HUBBALLI-DHARWAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI-560020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.S. MOT, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. R.H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3; SRI. I.C. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7334 WP No. 103468 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.12.2024 IN M.A.NO.5017/2022 (MAIN PETITION), CONNECTED WITH M.A.NO.5017/2024 (MAIN PETITION), CONNECTED WITH M.A.NOS.5015/2022, 5016/2022 AND 5020/2022 (IN RESPECT OF PETITIONERS), IS PRODUCED HEREIN AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE- A AND FURTHER PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) 1. This petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the impugned order dated 13.12.2024 in M.A. Nos.5017/2022 connected with M.A Nos.5015/2022, 5016/2022 and 5020/022. During the pendency of this petition, the petitioners and respondent No.1 have filed a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure to amicably resolve the dispute that had arisen between the petitioners and respondent No.1 which led to this litigation. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the absolute owners in actual possession and enjoyment of the residential plots bearing Nos.112, 106, 107, 111, 113, 109, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7334 WP No. 103468 of 2025 110 and 108 situate at Rajeev Nagar, 2nd stage, Unkal, Hubballi. Pursuant to the purchase of the property, petitioner Nos.1 to 6 constructed their respective residential house by obtaining necessary permission from respondent No.2-Hubballi-Dhawad Municipal Corporation and they are in lawful possession and occupation of their respective property. Completion certificate has been issued in their favour by respondent No.2. 3. This being the state of affairs, respondent No.1- owner of Plot No.105 filed a complaint with respondent No.2- HDMC claiming that petitioner Nos.1 to 6 violated building bye-laws and encroached a portion of his plot. In pursuance of the complaint registered by respondent No.1, respondent No.2 issued a notice under Section 321(1), (2) and (3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the KMC Act,’ for short) to the petitioners. 4. The petitioners being aggrieved by the issuance of notice by respondent No.2, preferred Miscellaneous Appeals which stated hereinabove. Upon hearing the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7334 WP No. 103468 of 2025 parties, the learned District Judge passed an order directing respondent No.2 to conduct an inquiry into the complaint made by respondent No.1. On the basis of the complaint, respondent No.2-HDMC initiated proceedings under Section 321(1) of KMC Act. This being the state of affairs, petitioner Nos.1 to 6 and respondent No.1 have amicably resolved to settled their differences with regard to the dispute of encroachment over the property of respondent No.1. 5. It is seen that petitioner Nos.7 to 9 were not parties before the trial Court. However, they are made parties in this proceeding as they are also the owners of the property and it is claimed by respondent No.1 that petitioner Nos.7 to 9 have also encroached upon some portion of the property of respondent No.1. Though petitioner Nos.7 to 9 were not parties before the trial Court, respondent No.1 has agreed to resolve the dispute with regard to the illegal encroachment of the portion of the property of respondent No.1 by petitioner Nos.7 to 9. Hence, petitioner Nos.1 to 9 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7334 WP No. 103468 of 2025 and respondent No.1 have filed this present compromise petition to put an end to the litigation. 6. The petitioners and respondent No.1 have executed the compromise petition and entered into the terms of compromise by putting it in writing. The terms of the compromise are enumerated in the compromise petition at point No.1 to point No.7. The petitioners have in all agreed to pay total amount of Rs.50,00,000/- by various amount as described in para No.2 in the tabular column annexed therein, respectively, along with the plot number in favour of respondent No.1. The amount and manner of payment as mentioned in para No.2 has been paid and handed over to respondent No.1 today in the open Court, which is acknowledged by respondent No.1. 7. In view of settlement entered into between the petitioners and respondent No.1, respondent No.1 has agreed to forego the encroached portion of the property in favour of the petitioners by necessary documents and he shall co-operate with respondent Nos.2 and 3 for change of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7334 WP No. 103468 of 2025 entries in the name of the petitioners with regard to encroached portion of the property belonging the respondent No.1. In view of the petitioners and respondent No.1 entering into this agreement, respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 do not have any objection to the compromise, as private parties are agreeable to resolve the dispute and in turn they would execute or issue necessary documents or entries in favour of the petitioners on the letters so furnished and documents so furnished by respondent No.1. 8. Respondent No.1 has agreed to withdraw RFA No.100570/2023 filed by him before this Court and also contempt case in CCC No.100101 of 2025. 9. This Court has enquired with the petitioners and also respondent No.1 on the legality, genuinity, execution and the contents of the compromise petition. The petitioners have submitted that have freely and voluntarily singed and executed the compromise petition without any force, coercion or ill-will. Respondent No.1 has also stated that he has signed this compromise petition and executed it without - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7334 WP No. 103468 of 2025 any force, coercion or ill-will. He also acknowledges the receipt of the amount mentioned in para 2 of the compromise petition. 10. In view of the parties having settled the matter amicably as per the compromise petition, this petition would have to be disposed of in accordance with the compromise petition. 11. Accordingly, I pass the following order: This petition is disposed of. The impugned order dated 13.12.2024 in M.A. No.5017/2022 connected with M.A.Nos.5015/2022, 5016/2022 and 5020/2022 is hereby quashed so also the further proceedings initiated by respondent Nos.2 and 3-Authorities under Section 321(1) of the KMC Act. This petition is disposed of in terms of the compromise petition. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7334 WP No. 103468 of 2025 The terms and conditions stipulated in the compromise petition shall form part of this order. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE kmv CT-MCK