JUDGMENT : Alok Aradhe, J. Mr.Ajay J.Nandalike learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Vijay Kumar A.Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 5. Mr.Dhananjay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.6. 2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally. 3. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks a writ of certiorari for quashment of impugned order dated 18.01.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner also seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to pass a fresh order in terms of the agreement dated 10.04.2007. 4. Facts giving rise to the filing of the petition briefly stated are that in the year 2004-05, the petitioner was allotted the work of construction of mini hidel project for power generation across Phalguni river in Dakshina Kannada District. On 31.01.2005, the respondent No.6 as well as 17 others, claiming to be the owners of land in Sangabettu Village, Bantwala Taluk, approached the Principal Civil Judge, Bantwala and filed O.S.No.28/2005 seeking the relief of injunction restraining the petitioner from putting up the mini hidel project. Thereafter, on 10.04.2007 respondent No.6 and 20 others entered into an agreement which clearly stipulated that in the event of any damage or loss of crop, clause 2 of the aforesaid agreement quantified the amount of compensation which was fixed at Rs.12,00,000/- per acre for coconut and arecanut plantation and Rs.7,00,000/- per acre for wet land and Rs.3,00,000/- per acre for dry land. In the light of the aforesaid agreement, the suit filed by the respondent No.6 and other land owners was withdrawn on 27.05.2008. Thereafter, the respondent No.6 filed a writ petition before this Court namely W.P.No.5379/2016 in which a direction was sought to release the compensation amount. It is pertinent to mention here that in the aforesaid writ petition, the factum of execution of agreement between the petitioner and respondent No.6 was not disclosed. Thereupon, a Bench of this Court, by an order dated 22.02.2017, directed the respondent No.6 to make a fresh representation to respondent No.2 seeking compensation and respondent No.2 was directed to award compensation as per the directions passed in W.P.No.55938/2015. Respondent No.6 thereupon submitted a representation on 16.03.2017. Thereafter, the inspection was carried on 20.07.2017 wherein the petitioner informed the respondent No.2 about the agreement. Respondent No.6 thereupon submitted a representation on 16.03.2017. Thereafter, the inspection was carried on 20.07.2017 wherein the petitioner informed the respondent No.2 about the agreement. The assessment report dated 28.07.2017 was prepared fixing the compensation and an award dated 21.08.2017 was passed which was in contravention of the agreement. The petitioner thereupon filed a writ petition namely W.P.No.56199/2017 in which the aforesaid award was challenged by which compensation payable was quantified at Rs.36,78,213/-. A Bench of this Court passed an interim order directing payment of half of the amount to respondent No.6. It is pertinent to note that the aforesaid interim order was passed on the admission of the petitioner that the respondent No.6 was fully entitled to Rs.24,00,000/- compensation as only 2 acres of land comes under the submerged area. The petitioner made payment of Rs.18,39,000/- to respondent No.6. By an order dated 26.02.2018, the writ petition was allowed. The respondent No.2 was directed to consider the compensation in terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. However, the Deputy Commissioner, by an order dated 18.01.2019 held that the agreement cannot be looked into for the purposes of awarding the compensation and reiterated the earlier order. In the aforesaid background, the petitioner has approached this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is per se bad in law as the same has been passed in contravention of the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.56199/2017. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to the directions contained in paragraphs 8,9 and 13 of the order passed in W.P.No.56199/2017 as well as the order dated 18.01.2019. It is further submitted that the finding recorded by the Deputy Commissioner that the agreement executed between the parties cannot be looked into is perverse. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 has supported the award passed by the Deputy Commissioner. 7. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the agreement. Admittedly, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.56199/2017 which was disposed of by a Bench of this Court by an order dated 26.02.2018. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 has supported the award passed by the Deputy Commissioner. 7. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the agreement. Admittedly, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.56199/2017 which was disposed of by a Bench of this Court by an order dated 26.02.2018. In order to demonstrate that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is in contravention of the order passed in W.P.No.56199/2017, the directions issued by this Court as well as the relevant extractions from the order dated 18.01.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner are reproduced below in the tabular form. Sl. No. Extracts from the order of this Hon'ble Court in WP56199/2017 Extracts from the Order passed by R-2 at Annexure-A 1 "8 Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court of the opinion that the learned Deputy Commissioner ought to have taken into account the Registered Agreement between the parties dated 11/04/2017 while determining the compensation payable by the petitioner, the exact measurements of land adversely affected by the submergence due to construction raised by the petitioner company and also crops adversely affected of the Respondent. The said Agreement has not been apparently considered by the learned Deputy Commissioner. 9. It is now brought to the notice of the Court by both the learned counsels that the fact of the said Registered Agreement dated 11/04/2017 was not even brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge who passed the order on 22/02/2017. 10. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is disposed of and the matter is remanded back to the learned Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada District, Mangalore to decide the case again between the parties after giving an opportunity of hearing afresh (at p.159-160 of WP) "16. Point No.1: The Agreement between the parties Vide No:BNT-4-00002-2007-08 dated 11.04.2007 was not even brought to the notice of the learned single judge who passed the order on 22.02.2017 in Writ Petition No:5379/2016 & 9629- 30/2016. The said agreement was brought to the notice of this office after Deputy Commissioner DK wrote to the company to pay compensation to Mr. Shantappa Bhandary on 21.08.2017. There is lapse from both the side. The said agreement was brought to the notice of this office after Deputy Commissioner DK wrote to the company to pay compensation to Mr. Shantappa Bhandary on 21.08.2017. There is lapse from both the side. As per the agreement, legal notices had been given to the petitioner for the payment of the compensation, even though the service of notices, Petitioner has failed to make payment and could not act upon the said agreement. Therefore, the agreement could not be considered at this point causing further damage to the property of Mr. Shantappa Bhandary (At p.23 of WP) Submission: Despite a clear direction to consider the Agreement, R-2 has ignored the Agreement. The Agreement fixed the compensation based on extent of land damaged and not on quantum of crop on the land. "13. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the actual extent of submergence can be determined only during the rainy season, therefore, the period for re-determining the compensation after verification of the actual submerged land and loss of crops may be extended up to the end of September 2018. 14. The request of the learned counsel appears to be fair and reasonable. Therefore, the learned Deputy Commissioner is directed to decide the case again upon remand by the end of October 2018, after holding a joint survey in the presence of both the sides in the month of September/October 2018. Submission: (1) This Hon'ble Court directed the Respondent No.2 to personally conduct the survey. The Respondent No.2 neither personally visited the spot nor conducted the survey. The compensation has been fixed on assumptions and surmises and blindly accepting the report of his juniors without application of mind. (2) No measurement of extent of land submerged as was directed by this Hon'ble Court. Instead only outward appearance was considered' and that too only of the trees. (3) This Hon'ble Court had directed R-2 to conduct a fresh joint survey. R-2 has relied on the earlier joint measurement survey to award compensation. Therefore, this Hon'ble Court's directions have been violated. (4) The Agreement (Annexure-B to the WP) at Clause 2 (at p.65 Translated version and p.32 Kannada version) fixed the compensation based on per acre' basis. As R-6 land is arecanut/coconut plantation, the compensation is Rs.12 lakhs per acre. The total extent of damage is around 2.1 acres, the Respondent No.6 is entitled to only around Rs.24 lakhs compensation. (4) The Agreement (Annexure-B to the WP) at Clause 2 (at p.65 Translated version and p.32 Kannada version) fixed the compensation based on per acre' basis. As R-6 land is arecanut/coconut plantation, the compensation is Rs.12 lakhs per acre. The total extent of damage is around 2.1 acres, the Respondent No.6 is entitled to only around Rs.24 lakhs compensation. However, the Respondents 1 to 5 have not considered the extent of land submerged but have fixed compensation on the total number of trees. The petitioner has specifically disputed the extent of trees. "18. Point No.3: As per the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP 56199/2017, the Joint Director Agriculture, the Deputy Director Horticulture, the Assistant Commissioner Mangaluru and the Tahsildar Bantwal were directed to conduct the joint inspection at the end of September/October and once again submit the report regarding the damage caused due to the stagned (sic.) water in the said land. Assistant Commissioner along with JD Agriculture, DD Horticulture Department, Assistant Commissioner Mangaluru and Tahsildar Bantwal and revenue official visits the spot on 27-09-2017 and submitted that, at an outward appearance, it appears that the damaged (sic.) was caused due to stangned (sic.) water in the said land and due to the increase in the level of water there may the (sic.) in flaw of the water in the said land. There are total 1041 arecanut trees,61 coconut trees, of which 901 arecanut trees,56 are completely damaged and 564 trees were partially damaged. All remaining trees could be completely damaged in the near future, and there is no difference in the report submitted earlier. The total value of the damaged coconut and arecanut trees is Rs.36,78,213/-. The Detailed joint survey report submitted earlier was as follows: (Table is not extracted) Hence value of damage determined by the Joint Director Agriculture, The Deputy Director Horticulture Department, the Assistant Commissioner Mangaluru and the Tahsildar Bantwal and other revenue officials appears to be reasonable. It is sure that the trees have been damaged due to stagnant water. Hence the level of water in the river is not the same. There is the possibility that, the trees can be damaged completely by the roots. (at p.24 of the WP) 8. It is sure that the trees have been damaged due to stagnant water. Hence the level of water in the river is not the same. There is the possibility that, the trees can be damaged completely by the roots. (at p.24 of the WP) 8. Thus, from perusal of the aforesaid columns, it is evident that the order which has been passed by the respondent No.2 namely Deputy Commissioner has been passed in contravention of the order passed in W.P.No.56199/2017. It is also pertinent to mention here that admittedly, the respondent No.6 had filed W.P.No.5379/2016 which was decided by a Bench of this Court on 22.02.2017 with the following direction: "6. To enable such consideration, the petitioner shall now make a representation along with all supporting documents with respondent Nos.2,3 and 5. The respondent Nos.2,3 and 5 shall thereupon hold a joint inspection in all terms as indicated in W.P.No.55938/2015 and connected petitions dated 01.03.2016 and take a decision in the matter. Such decision shall be taken as expeditiously as possible but, not later than three months from the date on which a fresh representation is submitted by the petitioner." 9. In the aforesaid writ petition, admittedly the respondent No.6 did not disclose the factum of having entered into a registered agreement with the petitioner on 10.04.2007 and thus, has obtained an order by playing fraud. Admittedly, under the agreement, the respondent No.6 is entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 25.25 lakhs. The petitioner is bound by the agreement as the petitioner has not challenged the validity of the agreement before any forum. It is pertinent to mention here that this is the third round of litigation before this Court and no useful good purpose would be served by again remitting the matter to the Deputy Commissioner since the petitioner is bound by the agreement. Approximately, an area of 2 acres 10 cents of the land belonging to the respondent No.6 has come under the submerged area. The respondent No.6, under the agreement, is entitled to a sum of Rs. 25.25 lakhs by way of compensation. However, at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay a sum of Rs. 26,00,000/- to the respondent No.6 towards full and final settlement of their claim. 10. The respondent No.6, under the agreement, is entitled to a sum of Rs. 25.25 lakhs by way of compensation. However, at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay a sum of Rs. 26,00,000/- to the respondent No.6 towards full and final settlement of their claim. 10. In view of the aforesaid submissions and taking into account the registered agreement dated 10.04.2007 which is binding on the petitioner as well as the respondent No.6 and in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to disburse a sum of Rs. 26,00,000/- to the respondent No.6 minus the amount which has already been disbursed within a period of one week from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.