Authority: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 17 August 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant – Bhanwar Lal; Respondents – Shantana Parera & others (also listed as Shobha Chadhdha & others in the record).
  • Civil Appeal No. 4409/2024 challenges the High Court of Rajasthan judgment dated 26‑05‑2017 (S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 271 of 2016).
  • Interlocutory applications addressed:
  • IA 163381/2023 – allowed to record legal heirs of deceased respondent No. 3.
  • IA 170789/2026 – allowed to record legal heirs of deceased respondent No. 2.
  • Application for deletion of respondents Nos. 3‑5 – allowed; Registry directed to modify cause title.
  • IA 229925/2026 (impleadment) – rejected.
  • IA 218117/2026 (Joint Application) – allowed; settlement agreement placed on record.
  • Settlement Agreement dated 30‑06‑2026 signed by parties and counsel, containing detailed terms (1.1‑1.14) covering:
  • Abandonment of all legal rights by Respondent‑Defendant‑Second Party over the disputed Subject Land.
  • Acknowledgment of appellant’s rights under Decree of Specific Performance dated 13‑12‑2013.
  • Transfer of 3 Biga 10 Biswa (0.8500 hectare) – comprising Khasra Nos. 276/688, 276/689 and part of 276 – to M/s Adroit Sports Ventures LLP (the “Settled Land”).
  • Retention by appellant of exclusive ownership of 8 Biga 1 Biswa (0.6726 hectare) covering Khasra No. 275, 276/691, 274, 276/690 and part of 276.
  • No objection by Respondent‑Defendant‑Second Party to direct nomination and transfer of Settled Land to Adroit Sports.
  • Obligation of appellant to hand over vacant physical possession of Settled Land to Adroit Sports within five days of Supreme Court recording the settlement.
  • Requirement for appellant to execute supplementary deeds or declarations for revenue mutation in favour of Adroit Sports; decree deemed sufficient authority if appellant fails to cooperate.
  • Power of Attorney holder of Respondent‑Defendant‑Second Party to sign all necessary applications and appear before the Court.
  • Mutual waiver of all future claims, disputes, or legal objections concerning Subject Land and Settled Land upon judicial recording of the agreement.
  • Consequence of non‑compliance: aggrieved party may seek implementation, execution, mutation, possession, demarcation, specific performance, contempt, and all other remedies before the Supreme Court or any competent authority; breach does not invalidate the settlement.
  • Representations and warranties affirm parties’ authority, absence of conflicting agreements, and that Settled Land will be free of encumbrances.
  • Miscellaneous provisions include:
  • Entire agreement clause; amendment only in writing.
  • Indemnities: appellant indemnifies Adroit Sports against third‑party claims, encumbrances, litigation; Respondent‑Defendant‑Second Party indemnifies appellant against acts concerning Subject Land.
  • Assistance from local administration, police, and revenue officials for demarcation.
  • Each party bears its own costs and legal fees.
  • Agreement executed on four stamp papers dated 29‑06‑2026, with originals for the Court and parties.
  • Registration: parties to stamp/register the agreement if required, bearing own costs.
  • Directions issued by the Court:

(i) All pending inter‑se legal proceedings between the parties stand closed.

(ii) The impugned judgment/order dated 26‑05‑2017 is modified per the settlement.

(iii) A decree shall be drawn accordingly.

(iv) Parties must continue to abide by the settlement terms without exception.

(v) Settlement terms are binding on the parties.

(vi) Parties warned of contempt proceedings for breach.

  • The Court noted an earlier purchaser’s impleadment application is filed but not on record; revenue petition pending before the Authority.
  • IA 218117/2026 is allowed; the present appeal is disposed of, and any pending applications are also disposed.

Final Outcome

  • The Supreme Court approved the settlement, effecting the transfer of 0.85 hectare to M/s Adroit Sports Ventures LLP and confirming appellant’s retention of 0.6726 hectare.
  • The earlier 2017 judgment is modified, a new decree will be issued, and all pending inter‑party litigation is closed.
  • Non‑compliance provisions and indemnities are enforceable; parties bear their own costs.

Topics: Land Settlement, Court Order