JUDGMENT : DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J. 1. This case has a fair amount of litigative history behind it, but it is not for us to speak of it in detail, particularly since the controversy involved is in a rather small compass. 2. The entire issue revolves on an extent of 36.27 cents of land, which, admittedly, is covered by the Kerala Service Inam Lands (Vesting and Enfranchisement) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). 3. For the purpose of clarity, we will record that there were three individuals who claimed the land in question under the afore ‘Act’ namely, Smt.Nani Devaki, Sri.Gopalan Gopi and Sri.Gopalapillai Velappan Nair. Several rounds of litigation before the statutory Settlement Officer, District Collector, this Court and the Honourable Supreme Court, have been completed between the parties. 4. It transpires that Sri.Gopalan Gopi – who was the applicant in O.A.640/1982 before the Settlement Officer, was issued a ‘Purchase Certificate’ on 06.10.1988; and that he, thereupon, sold the same to respondents 1 to 4 herein (hereinafter referred to as ‘the purchasers’ for short). However, through subsequent proceedings, the said ‘Purchase Certificate’ had been set aside; and finally, the order of assignment was issued by the Settlement Officer in favour of Smt.Nani Devaki, through Ext.P41 order dated 18.08.2015. 5. Sri.Gopalan Gopi and Sri.Gopalapillai Velappan Nair, thereupon, filed Appeals before the statutory Appellate Authority – namely the jurisdictional District Collector; and we are told that the said Authority also passed an order which was, however, set aside by this Court through Ext.R22(f) judgment. Though Appeals were preferred against this, the judgment was confirmed. 6. The matter thus went back to the District Collector; and while so, an application was filed by Sri.Gopalan Gopi to implead the ‘purchasers’ as necessary parties, conceding that they had ‘stepped into his shoes’ since all his rights over the property had been sold to them. 7. There is some confusion whether the aforesaid application has been allowed; but there was a fair amount of consensus obtained at the Bar today between the learned counsel for all the parties, that it appears to have not been allowed. 7. There is some confusion whether the aforesaid application has been allowed; but there was a fair amount of consensus obtained at the Bar today between the learned counsel for all the parties, that it appears to have not been allowed. Nevertheless, the three applicants and their legal heirs (since two of them had passed away) entered into a compromise, which is available from Ext.P48, agreeing that Sri.Gopalapillai Velappan Nair and his legal heirs would be entitled to 10.09 cents; while, Smt.Nani Devaki and her legal heirs would be entitled to 15.09 cents. The balance 11.09 cents was, as per the settlement, reserved in favour of Sri.Gopalan Gopi. 8. The afore compromise was accepted by the District Collector, thus leading to Ext.P47 order; against which, the purchasers initially attempted their statutory remedies - including before the Land Revenue Commissioner; but since it went against them, they approached this Court through WP(C)No.37457/2024 challenging Exts.P41, P47 (being order of the Land Revenue Commissioner) and P55. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition entering various conclusions, but essentially finding that the compromise was improper because, the purchasers had not been allowed to be impleaded in the statutory Appeals. 9. The legal heirs of Sri.Gopalapillai Velappan Nair are in Appeal before us. 10. We must say that we have recorded the facts only to the minimum extent necessary because, the entire sequence over the years will take in a lot more details. 11. As discernible from the afore narrative, the real question is whether the compromise between the three claimants (and their legal heirs) is legally tenable; and whether it could have been accepted by the District Collector, without the consent and knowledge of the ‘purchasers’. 12. That said, as far as Smt.Nani Devaki and Gopalapillai Velappan Nair are concerned, they had full competence to enter into the compromise. The question is only that of Sri.Gopalan Gopi. 13. This is because, as seen above, Sri.Gopalan Gopi makes an unreserved concession that he had sold his rights over the property to the ‘purchasers’, at a time when he was enjoying a ‘purchase certificate’ dated 06.10.1988 in his favour. The application for impleading the purchasers filed by him, namely Ext.P45, luculently admits that he had transferred all his rights over the property to the ‘purchasers’; and that they are conducting the case on his behalf. The application for impleading the purchasers filed by him, namely Ext.P45, luculently admits that he had transferred all his rights over the property to the ‘purchasers’; and that they are conducting the case on his behalf. Interestingly, this application has been filed by Sri.Gopalan Gopi, through his own learned counsel and this is without any dispute. 14. However, the District Collector, perhaps not being fully aware of the real facts, or about the pendency of Ext.P45, appears to have accepted the compromise, namely Ext.P48, thus issuing the Ext.P47 order. 15. Ineluctably, therefore, the question is vitally relevant whether Sri.Gopalan Gopi had the right to enter into a compromise as he had done, particularly after he himself filed Ext.P45 application for impleading the ‘purchasers’, wherein, he averred as afore. 16. We are without doubt that, had the District Collector seen Ext.P45 application, or been notified of the facts to the afore effect, he may not have accepted the compromise, or issued Ext.P47 order. 17. To reiterate, the essential controversy is whether Sri.Gopalan Gopi had the competence to enter into a compromise, when he unequivocally concedes that he had no right over the property and had transferred all such in favour of the ‘purchasers’. Of course, the question whether such a transfer is valid or otherwise, is an adjunct issue which will also require to be looked into. But, on the aspect of the conduct of Sri.Gopalan Gopi, there is some leeway for suspicion because, as said above, both he and the ‘purchasers’ were concededly represented by the same counsel. 18. We choose to say nothing further, since our intent is not to embarrass anyone. However, the compliance of mandatory procedural requirements and adherence to imperative principles of substantial justice will have to be certainly ensured. 19. Going by the impugned Ext.P47 order of the District Collector, a compromise is operating against the ‘purchasers’, even without their knowledge; and at a time when their successor-in- interest, Sri.Gopalan Gopi, has unreservedly averred in Ext.P45 application that he had no further right in the property and further that he is being represented by them. 20. Questions as to the propriety of Sri.Gopalan Gopi in having entered into a compromise, therefore, are writ large. 21. 20. Questions as to the propriety of Sri.Gopalan Gopi in having entered into a compromise, therefore, are writ large. 21. However, what is interesting to us is not the afore but, how the appellants herein could have filed this Appeal when, neither the legal heirs of Smt.Nani Devaki or Sri.Gopalan Gopi have chosen to do so. Obviously, they have accepted the judgment, as also the directions therein. However, the appellants seem to pursue this Appeal, asserting that the compromise is valid and that the learned Single Judge could not have declared otherwise. 22. Being alerted by our above view, Sri.R.Lakshmi Narayanan, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.R.Ranjanie - appearing for the legal heirs of Smt.Nani Devaki; and Sri.Ajith Krishnan – learned counsel for Sri.Gopalan Gopi, conceded that their respective clients have not filed appeals against the judgment; but argued that they, nevertheless, are entitled to assert against it because, the same is in error. The learned Senior Counsel relied upon Triloki Nath Singh v. Anirudh Singh (D) through LRs. & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 3961 of 2010, to argue that the decree based on a compromise cannot be challenged by a lis pendens purchaser in a pending matter; and hence that the learned Single Judge ought not to have set aside Ext.P47 order. 23. We are afraid that we cannot find favour with the contentions of Sri.T.Rajasekharan Nair – learned counsel for the appellants, or the grounds urged in this Appeal, for the reasons we have already recorded above and which are certainly compelling. 24. As regards the contentions of Sri.R.Lakshmi Narayanan – learned Senior Counsel, and of Sri.Ajith Krishnan, we must say the facts noticed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Triloki Nath Singh (supra) are in variance to what are presented before us. That case related to a property involved in a partition; while, the land in the case before us is vested in the government, and the controversy is on whether it is entitled to be assigned to one of the applicants or otherwise. There is a marked difference in a dispute between the parties claiming to be co- sharers; and those who are claiming rights over land through an assignment to be made in future. 25. There is a marked difference in a dispute between the parties claiming to be co- sharers; and those who are claiming rights over land through an assignment to be made in future. 25. Merely to reiterate, the District Collector could have accepted the compromise only after he had verified Ext.P45 application for impleadment and after evaluating whether Sri.Gopalan Gopi had the competence to enter into the compromise. We do not propose to speak against the compromise at this stage, but we certainly want the same to be analyzed by the District Collector, including whether it can be accepted; leading to a further order from him in the manner known to law. 26. To such extent, we propose to modify the judgment of the learned Single Judge; but essentially finding in favour of all the holdings therein. Resultantly, this Appeal is dismissed; however, clarifying that the District Collector, while completing the exercise as ordered in the impugned judgment, will advert to Ext.P45 application and decide whether it is deserving to be allowed or otherwise. It is up to him to take a dispassionate decision on it, after hearing all sides, including the ‘purchasers’. Once the afore is done, the Authority will decide whether the compromise can be accepted; thus leading to a fresh order, without any avoidable delay, again, after hearing all sides. In order to enable an expeditious compliance with the afore directions, we direct all the parties to mark appearance before the District Collector at 11 a.m. on 20.04.2026.