The court asserted that settled agreements among claimants should be honored unless strong evidence indicates otherwise, even if potential other claims exist.

ORDER :

P.SAM KOSHY, J.

Heard Mr. P.Raja Sripathi Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. K.Saisruthin Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Ms. S.Indira, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. P.Ramachandran, learned for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. The instant C.R.P. under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 03.09.2025, passed by the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, in I.A.SR.No.1700 of 2025 in L.A.O.P.No.25 of 2018.

3. Vide the impugned order, the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority rejected the aforesaid I.A.SR.No.1700 of 2025 filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) for recording the terms of compromise entered into between the petitioner and respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein.

4. The petitioner herein is claimant No.7 and respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are the claimant Nos.3 and 4 before the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority.

5. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, all the parties to the dispute are present before the Court. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed I.A.No.2 of 2025 in terms of the settlement that was arrived at between them and the petitioner and the parties also have jointly filed an affidavit indemnifying any future claims by any of the family members.

6. Sl.No.16 of the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT of 1984, dated 25.11.2008, would show the names of respondent Nos.1 and 2 to be the persons who have been notified as the owners of the property. The award which was subsequently passed on 19.10.2015 also reflects that the award has been passed indicating the names of respondent Nos.1 and 2 to be actual owners of the property as would be reflected in the chart showing apportionment of the award. Objections were filed on behalf of the petitioner claiming himself also to be a coparcener of the property and he too having a share in the property. It was this objection which was seized by the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority while hearing the L.A.O.P.No.25 of 2018.

7. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, from the aforesaid factual matrix of the case it is clearly evident that apart from the petitioner and respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, there does not seem to be any other claimant claiming any share in the award passed by the authority concerned on 19.10.2015. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that pending the L.A.O.P.No.25 of 2018 before the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, the parties have filed an joint application for disposal of the said L.A.O.P. in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties.

8. The terms of settlement arrived at between the parties for ready reference is reproduced below:

“A. That, the Claimant No. 7 (Bommena Anantha Rao) claiming rights / share in respect of H.No. 1-15 & 1-15/A (Old H.No. 1-8) along with an extent of 1438 Sq. Yards of land in Survey No.1/A, situated at Kodurupaka Village, Boinpalli Mandal, Karimnagar District presently Rajanna Sircilla District.

B. That, the Claimant No. 7 is disputing the title/Interest/entitlement of Claimant No. 3 & 4 with respect to H.No. 1-15 & 1-15/A along with an extent of 1438 Sq. Yards of land. As such the Claimant No. 3, 4 and 7 have approached the elders and well-wishers for amicable settlement. As per the advice and suggestion of elders, the Claimant No. 3 & 4 agreed to apportion / share the Compensation amount of Rs. 67,16,012/- in the following manner.

That the accrued interest on total amount of Rs. 67,16,012/- from