Compromise decrees are binding unless proven fraudulent; challenges must be made in the issuing court and cannot be raised belatedly.

ORDER :

(N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR, J.)

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief :

“to call for records relating to order in Appeal bearing No.D4/TA/4/89, dated 09.03.1992 of respondent No.1 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to restore possession of land in Sy.No.238 admeasuring Ac.10-00 gts., to the petitioners.”

2. The facts of the case in brief are that one Smt.Durgamma was protected tenant of agricultural land to an extent of Ac.17-09 gts., in Sy.No.238 situated at Indervelli Village of Adilabad District. Accordingly ownership rights under Section 38-E of A.P.(T.A.) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 were conferred on L.Rs of the said Durgamma i.e., Godala Pochiga vide proceedings of respondent No.2 in G/5915/74 and the same was confirmed by respondent No.1 in Appeal by order dated 29.05.1976. It appears that respondent No.4 has filed compromise memo before District Revenue Officer, Adilabad but the same was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the land lord Smt.Subba bai filed C.R.P.No.934/1976 before this Court which was dismissed on 14.09.1979. Petitioners’ further case is that by virtue of the said order, the ownership rights were confirmed on Mr.Gadala Pochiga and the matter has attained finality.

3. It is further submitted that though the ownership rights were conferred on the protected tenant, the said land was found to be in occupation of landlord Smt.Subba bai, therefore, a show cause notice was issued to the said land lord under Rule (1) of Amended Act 2 of 1979 by the Tahsildar, Indervelli on 01.08.1980. Aggrieved by the same, the land lord has filed W.P.No.4266 of 1980 before this Court and this Court vide order dated 04.04.1986 dismissed the said writ petition and granted liberty to the land lord for raising all objections before Mandal Revenue Officer. After considering the objections raised by the land lord, the Mandal Revenue Officer i.e., respondent No.3 by order dated 12.05.1989 ordered eviction and directed to handover the possession to the L.R.s of Late Gadala Pochiga under Section 38-E(2) of Amended Act 2 of 1979. During the pendency of the proceedings, Gadala Pochiga died and his daughter Smt.Budi was brought on record. Accordingly, Smt.Budi was inducted into possession of the land in Sy.No.238 admeasuring Ac.17-09 gts., on 12.05.1989 in the presence of panchas and panchanama was recorded to that effect.

4. Aggrieved by the order of respondent No.3 dated 12.05.1989, the land owner Smt.Subba bai and her son had filed an appeal before respondent No.1 on 22.05.1989 and simultaneously filed W.P.No.7088 of 1989 before this Court wherein this Court vide order dated 24.05.1989 in W.P.M.P.No.9276 of 1989 granted an order of interim stay. On 22.06.1989, an order of interim stay was also granted in the appeal filed before respondent No.1. Subsequently, the land owner had withdrawn the said Writ Petition in W.P.No.7088 of 1989 on 23.12.1991. Thereafter, the matter came up before respondent No.1 and the appellant and respondent therein agreed for compromise and in terms of the said compromise memo, the appeal came to be disposed of by order dated 09.03.1992. Questioning the said order the present writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated 09.03.1992 seeking a consequential direction to the respondents to restore possession of land in Sy.No.238 admeasuring Ac.10-00 gts., to the petitioners.

5. It is the case of the petitioners that they being legal heirs of Smt.Budi W/o.Rajanna, are in actual possession of the subject land in view of the possession handed over to Gadala Pochiga on 12.05.1989 itself. It is their further case that Smt.Budi during her lifetime has never informed the petitioners that she has compromised the matter with Mr.Ganpath Rao i.e., respondent No.4 and only during the month of July, 2011, when the said Ganpath Rao tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioners, the petitioners were informed that the matter was compromised during the lifetime