1. I.A. No. 9805 of 2025 seeking condonation of delay in instituting the present appeal is allowed.

I.A. No. 159 of 2026:

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. This is a joint compromise petition on behalf of the appellant and the respondent No. 1 with a prayer that the present appeal be disposed of in terms of the compromise as recorded in Annexure-1 to this interlocutory application.

4. The appellant-Laxman Prasad Bhagat is physically present before this Court. He has been identified by his advocate.

5. To the Court’s query, he submits that he has indeed signed the compromise document at Annexure-1 after he was explained the contents as well as scope and import thereof.

6. Similarly, Harichand Rai and his wife-Somanti Devi are also physically present before this Court. They have been identified by their advocate. They submit that they have indeed signed the compromise petition at Annexure-1 after they were explained contents as well as scope and import thereof.

7. The parties, who are present in person before this Court, request that this appeal be disposed of in terms of the compromise agreement as recorded in Annexure-1 to this interlocutory application. They submit that in terms of the said compromise agreement, the land appertaining to Plot No. 185, Mouza-Jogia, Thana No. 33, Jamabandi No. 32, measuring an area of 19 Katthas and 12 Dhurs is in possession of the appellant, whereas the land appertaining to Plot No. 186, Mouza-Jogia, Thana No. 33, Jamabandi No. 32, measuring an area of 14 Katthas and 16 Dhurs is in possession of the respondent No. 1.

8. By the said agreement, they have arrived at an understanding that they will continue to remain in possession of the respective parts of the land.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the respondent No. 2-Ram Babu Bhagat is only a proforma party, who will not be affected by the said compromise agreement. He thus craves leave to delete the name of the respondent No. 2 from the array of the parties in this appeal. Leave is granted.

10. Necessary amendment/deletion in the cause title of the present appeal should be carried out forthwith.

11. We have perused the compromise terms and we find nothing therein to indicate that the same is contrary to the public policy.

12. Learned counsel for the parties have clarified that the State or its authorities are not bound by the said compromise terms, which are in the nature of a private agreement between the appellant and the respondent No. 1.

13. The present interlocutory application is accordingly allowed.

L.P.A. No. 558 of 2025:

14. Accordingly, we dispose of this appeal in terms of the compromise agreement dated 27.12.2025 (Annexure-1 to I.A. No. 159 of 2026) without any order for costs.

15. Any other interlocutory application will not survive and is disposed of.