1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL  NO(S).  7397 OF 2018 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 31069 OF 2014]

ANIL TRIPATHY                                  Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS

SARAT KUMAR PANDA  & ORS.                      Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant approached this Court, aggrieved by

the Judgment and order dated 11.07.2014 passed by the

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in R.F.A. No. 199 of

2013.  The first appeal arose out of the Judgment and

Decree  dated  19.11.2003  passed  by  the  learned

Additional  District  Judge,  Fast  Track  Court,

Bhubaneswar  in  Title  Suit  No.  380  of  2001.   A

preliminary  decree  was  passed  in  the  Title  Suit,

which  gave  rise  to  the  appeal.   The  appeal  was

allowed and thus, the plaintiff is before this Court.

3. When the matter came up to this Court, finding

that there is an element of settlement, this Court

passed the following order on 16.03.2018 :-

“On a suggestion made by the Court, the

learned  counsel  on  either  side

submitted that they would explore the

2

possibility  of  resolving  the  dispute

between  the  parties  if  the  matter  is

referred to Mediation.

Accordingly, we refer the matter

to the Mediation Centre attached to the

High  Court  of  Orissa  at  Cuttack  to

explore the possibility of an amicable

settlement of the dispute between the

parties,  who  would  appear  before  the

said Mediation Centre on 07.04.2018 at

11.00 A.M.   

The  Incharge,  Mediation  Centre,

after making an endeavour for amicable

resolution  of  the  disputes,  shall

submit  a  report  to  this  Court  within

four weeks thereafter.

List  the  matter  after  the

mediation report is received.”

4. Thereafter, it was reported that the parties have

decided to settle the dispute in principle.  However,

they were not able to agree on the terms.  When the

matter came up to this Court on 06.07.2018, since the

parties were before us, we could take the settlement

forward and finalise the terms.  The plaintiff agreed

to  purchase  the  disputed  land  for  an  amount  of

Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand and Five Hundred) per

sq.  ft.   Still,  there  was  a  dispute  as  to  the

location.  Thus, on 11.07.2018, this Court passed the

following order :-

3

“The parties have agreed, in principle,

to  purchase  peace  between  them.   The

petitioner  is  agreeable  to  pay  @

Rs.2,500/- per sq. ft in respect of the

land  in  dispute.   There  is,  however,

appears to be some dispute as to what is

the  exact  location  of  the  land  in

dispute.

We direct the Secretary, District Legal

Services  Authority,  Bhubneshwar,  to  go

along with the parties and demarcate the

actual land.  He shall also refer to the

map said to have been prepared by the

Amin.   The  parties  will  appear  before

the  Secretary  on  16.07.2018  at  11.00

A.M. and the Secretary will conduct the

local  inspection  and  submit  a  Report

within a week thereafter.

Post on 26.07.2018.”

5. Mr. Manas Ranjan Ray, Secretary, District Legal

Services  Authority,  Khurda,  Bhubaneswar,  has

forwarded a report dated 28.07.2018, wherein it is

stated that the exact extent of the land has been

identified with the assistance of a salaried Amin.

The area measures up is 440.82 sq.ft.  A sketch is

also forwarded.  The report and the sketch shall form

part  of  this  Judgment.   The  appeal  is,  hence,

disposed  of as  settled between  the parties  and in

terms of the report forwarded by the District Legal

Services Authority.  We record our appreciation for

4

the strenuous efforts taken by Sh. Manas Ranjan Ray,

Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority.

6. In  terms  of  the  settlement,  the  plaintiff  is

directed  to  pay  the  amount  in  three  bi-monthly

installments.  The first installment shall be paid

within one month from today.  We direct the competent

authority to change the record of rights after full

payment  is  made.   In  case  the  plaintiff  wants  a

separate  document  of  transfer,  we  direct  the

respondents to do the needful, at the expense of the

plaintiff.

7. Ms. Indira Jaising, learned senior counsel, has

graciously  submitted  that  the  underground  water

pipeline  presently  going  through  the  respondents’

property can be shifted to the plaintiff property.

We  direct  both  the  parties  to  extend  their

cooperation for facilitating the process of shifting.

No costs.   

.......................J.               [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]  

.......................J.               [ SANJAY KISHAN KAUL ]  

New Delhi; July 31, 2018.