IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
Infosys Limited - Appellant
Versus
The Special Land Acquisition Officer Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board - Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 15656, 25579 of 2022
Decided On : 19-08-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. parties settled the dispute amicably. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court quashes previous order and disposes writ petitions. (Para 3) |
ORDER :
1. Petitioners are before this Court calling in question an order passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer dated 09-09-2021.
2. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties to the lis have settled the dispute amicably. Accordingly, both the parties have filed a Joint Memo of Settlement. The relevant paragraphs of the Joint Memo reads as follows:
“5. During the course of the present proceedings, the parties made attempts to resolve the matter and have agreed to settle the disputes amicably on the following terms:
i. The Petitioner shall make payment of INR 42,83,750/- as full and final settlement of all the claims of the Moolya Family in respect of the Acquired Land, the Alternate Land, the said letter dated 26.12.2012, Order dated 09.09.2021 passed by Respondent No.1, or any other claim whatsoever in respect thereof or otherwise against the Petitioner.
ii. The parties have agreed to file this joint Memo and request this Hon'ble Court to defer the matter to a period beyond 30 days from date of filing of this Memo. The Petitioner shall make payment to the Moolya Family on or before the 30th day of filing of the present Memo. Upon the Moolya Family confirming receipt of payment or the Petitioner demonstrating proof of payment being made, this Hon'ble Court may dispose of the petitions as having been settled in terms hereof.
ii. The Petitioner shall make payment of the said amount within the timeline stated above by way of Demand Draft made in the name of Mr. Nagesh J., Respondent No.16 in W.P No. 25579/2022 who is the General Power of Attorney holder of Respondent Nos.4 to 15. The said amount will be divided amongst the Moolya family according to their understanding amongst each other, without reference or liability to the Petitioner. Respondent Nos. 4 to 15 hereby confirm that Respondent No. 16 is authorized to receive the settlement amount on their behalf and payment to him is in full and final satisfaction of their claims as against the Petitioner.
iv. The Moolya Family confirms that they are the legal heirs of late Mr. Rama Moolya and no other person or persons have any right or claim in respect of the Acquired Land, the Alternate Land, the said letter dated 26.12.2012, Order dated 09.09.2021 passed by Respondent No.1, or any other claim whatsoever against the Petitioner.
v. The Moolya Family shall indemnify the Petitioner for any loss or liability in the event any other person(s) makes any claims against the Petitioner and shall satisfy any such claims either existing or future, independently and without reference or liability to the Petitioner.
vi. Both Parties state that the interim orders, if any, in force shall stand vacated and the said Order dated 09.09.2021 passed by Respondent No.1 shall stand nullified.
vii. The Parties hereby declare and state that they have entered into executed and admitted execution of this Joint Memo of their own free will and volition, without any coercion or undue influence, and that they jointly and/or severally accept to be unconditionally bound by the terms and conditions of this Joint Memo.”
3. In the light of the compromise entered into between the parties on the terms as aforequoted, the following:
ORDER :
(i) Writ Petitions are disposed.
(ii) Impugned Order dated 09-09-2021 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer stands quashed.
AI
The court upholds the validity of a mutual settlement agreement between parties, quashing previous orders and recognizing the parties' voluntary consent to the settlement terms.
The court asserted that settled agreements among claimants should be honored unless strong evidence indicates otherwise, even if potential other claims exist.
The court upheld the validity of a voluntary settlement between parties in a compensation dispute, emphasizing the importance of amicable resolutions in litigation.
A binding compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure prevents parties from raising further claims related to the settled issues.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of joint ownership and possession rights in a Hindu Joint Family property, along with the implications of the Land Acquisition....
Family settlements must be substantiated with clear evidence; a denial by one party negates claims based on such settlements.
The court upheld the validity of a Joint Memo of Compromise, emphasizing mutual consent in resolving property disputes.
A legal heir is entitled to claimed compensation based on promises made by land acquisition authorities, regardless of significant delay, emphasizing principles of equity and promissory estoppel.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.