Order Petitioner has sought a direction to respondent No.1Tahsildar, Magadi Taluk, Magadi, to consider his representation dated 21/11/2013 (Annexure-E), for the purpose of entering his name in the revenue records. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the land in question i.e., Sy.No.2/2, measuring 1 acre 22 guntas at Hulikal Village, Kudur Hobli, Magadi Taluk, was the self acquired property of his late father Sri. Honnaiah. He died intestate on 21/9/1994. The grievance of the petitioner is that his name was not entered in the revenue records and that the name of only respondent No.2 was entered in the revenue records. 3. When the matter was listed before this court on earlier occasions, a suggestion was made to the learned counsel for the parties to explore the possibility of settlement of dispute between the parties. It was also brought to my notice that petitioner had filed O.S. No. 237/2010 before the court of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Magadi. Learned counsel for the parties took time to explore the possibility of a settlement between the parties and accordingly, today learned counsel along with their respective parties have reported settlement by filing a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. All the parties are present in person and through their counsel. Learned counsel have identified their respective parties. They state that they have decided to settle their dispute amicably and in terms of the compromise petition, they also state that they have settled the dispute without any coercion and out of their own free volition. They also admit their signatures on the compromise petition. 4. The compromise petition is taken on record. The writ petition is disposed in terms of the compromise petition, which reads as under: “The above named petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 9 begs to submit as follows: It is submitted that the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 9 are the children of late H.P. Honnaiah. Late H.P. Honnaiah had left landed property bearing Survey No.2/2 situated at Hulikal Village, kasaba Hobli, Magadi Taluk, to the extent of 1 acre 22 guntas of agricultural properties. There was some disputes among the children of Late H.P. Honnaiah in respect of the said property. Therefore, the petitioner filed the above writ petition besides filing the suit for partition in O.S.No.237/2010 before the Civil Judge at Magadi. 2. There was some disputes among the children of Late H.P. Honnaiah in respect of the said property. Therefore, the petitioner filed the above writ petition besides filing the suit for partition in O.S.No.237/2010 before the Civil Judge at Magadi. 2. It is submitted that at the interventions of the well wishers, elderly family members of parties, the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 9 agreed to settle the dispute amicably. 3. It is submitted that Late H.P. Honnaiah, out of his first wife had the following heirs viz., 1) H. Palanetra, 2) Sri H. Puttaiah, 3) H. Jayadevaiah, 4) H. Jagadeesh and out of the second wife, 5) Sri. H. Lokesh, 6) Devasharma 7) Smt. Bhagirathi, 8) Smt. Vedavathi & 9) Smt. Shahshikala. Among the nine children, H. Palanethra and H. Jagadeesh are no more. Their respective heirs are brought on record as respondent Nos. 3 (a) to 3(c) and respondent Nos.9(a) to 9(d) respectively. 4. It is submitted that out of the total extent of land of 62 guntas (1 acre 22 guntas), land shall be equally divided between nine children of late H.P. Honnaiah. It is further agreed that an extent of 6.89 guntas of land shall fall to each member’s share. On the southern side of the total property an extent of 20.67 guntas of land is given as share to Sri. H. Puttaiah, late H. Palanethran by LRs. and late H. Jagadeesh by L.Rs. An extent of 27.56 guntas of land on the North West portion shall fall to the share of Sri. H. Lokesh, Sri. H. Devasharma, Smt. H. Bhageerathi and Smt. H. Shahshikala. Sri. H. Devasharma, Smt. H. Bhageerathi and Smt. H. Shahshikala have decided to relinquish their respective right of share on the ancestral property totally measuring 20.67 guntas to Sri.H.Lokesh. By relinquishing their right of share on the ancestral property Sri.H.Devasharma, Smt. H. Bhagirathi and Smt. Smt. H. Shahshikala. will have no right of title and interest on the ancestral property and will also bind upon their respective children. Further an extent of 6.89 guntas each on the north east portion shall fall to the share of Smt. H. Vedavathi & H. Jayadevaiah respectively. The respective shares allotted to the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 9 are morefully mentioned in the rough sketch annexed to this compromise petition. 5. Further an extent of 6.89 guntas each on the north east portion shall fall to the share of Smt. H. Vedavathi & H. Jayadevaiah respectively. The respective shares allotted to the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 9 are morefully mentioned in the rough sketch annexed to this compromise petition. 5. It is submitted that the house property situated at Hulikal Village Panchayat bearing No. 275 standing in the name of late H.P. Honnaiah father of petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 to 9 constructed on the land measuring East to West 35.5 feet and North to South 72 feet totally measuring 2556 Sq. feet is in dilapidated condition and at present is not suitable for dwelling shall not be divided. Therefore, the members have decided to value the said house property at Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakh only). The person who is interested to retain the said house property shall pay a sum of Rs.44,444.44/- (Rupees forty four thousand, four hundred and forty four and paise forty four only) each to the rest of the members. In case any of the family members i.e., petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 9 do not agree to retain the house property, the same shall be sold by way of public sale and the sale proceeds shall be divided equally between the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 9. 6. It is submitted that for the aforesaid arrangements all the children of late H.P.Honnaiah and the L.Rs. of the deceased H.Palanethran and H.Jagadeesh have consented. For the aforesaid arrangements none of the family members have objections to effect the mutation in their respective names. The contents of this compromise petition shall not be questioned before any court of law. Further the contents of this compromise petition shall be binding on all the parties and their respective generation. Parties are entitled to get the mutation in respect of their respective share allotted in this compromise petition at their own cost. The parties are also entitled to put up fencing/compound wall to their respective shares at their own cost. 7. It is further agreed that the petitioner herein has agreed to withdraw the suit filed for partition in O.S.xNo.237/2010, pending on the file of Civil Judge, Magadi.” 5. Petitioner and the respondents have decided to divide the property in question in terms of the compromise and the sketch annexed to the compromise petition. 7. It is further agreed that the petitioner herein has agreed to withdraw the suit filed for partition in O.S.xNo.237/2010, pending on the file of Civil Judge, Magadi.” 5. Petitioner and the respondents have decided to divide the property in question in terms of the compromise and the sketch annexed to the compromise petition. The sketch shall also form part of this order. Petitioner has also undertaken to withdrawn O.S. No. 237/2010 filed against respondent No.2 herein. 6. The parties are also at liberty to seek disposal of O.S. No. 237/2010 in terms of this compromise by getting a final decree drawn in terms of this compromise. In the alternative, the trial Court is empowered to dispose the suit in terms of this order. 7. In the circumstances, writ petition is disposed in terms of the compromise. Parties to bear their respective costs.