From Sale Agreement to Settlement: Supreme Court Weighs In on Vijayawada Land Compromise.


10 November 2025 Special Leave Petition >> Civil & Consumer Law   |   Property Law >> Personal Law  

The Supreme Court of India, on 10 November 2025, dealt with an intriguing chapter in the long-standing property dispute from Andhra Pradesh’s burgeoning capital region. The matter, Karimunnisa Begum & Others v. Yalamanchili Rajani, arose from a decree for specific performance passed almost fifteen years back. Now, it comes back before the apex court, not for hearing arguments but for the court to finally seal a comprehensive settlement crafted between the contesting parties.

The roots of the dispute go back to an agreement to sell 2 acres and 20 cents of land in Rayapudi village, falling within the area now comprising the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region. A decree for specific performance passed in 2010 was confirmed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in 2024, after which the petitioners approached the Supreme Court by means of a Special Leave Petition- SLP No. 14243/2025. While the litigation wended its way through appeals, the fast-developing urban metamorphosis in the capital region within the structure of AP CRDA added new layers of complexity to the status of the property.

 

 

Realising the inevitability of change in practical realities, parties signed a Memorandum of Compromise dated 10 September 2025. The said compromise provided for the petitioners to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the respondent in respect of 1 acre and 64 cents, retaining 56 cents. They further agreed that the parties shall surrender their respective holdings to the AP CRDA in line with the Land Pooling Policy of the State, receiving developed plots proportionate to their surrendered land.

The compromise, when placed before the Supreme Court, saw the Bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan reserving its final endorsement. Indeed, the Court pointed out Clause 4 of the compromise as touching upon the issue of surrender of land to the CRDA and sought to examine as to whether the Authority itself had any stake or objection in the matter. Notice was thus issued to the AP CRDA for its response before the compromise could be recorded as final.

While procedural in form, this case invokes a deep intersection of private civil rights with public policy issues of land development. It is illustrative of the judiciary's balancing act—fostering settlement between litigants while ensuring that statutory authorities such as the CRDA are not prejudiced or bypassed. 

The compromise in Rayapudi constitutes a case study of the developing landscape of litigation within India's capital regions, where the relationships among civil law, planning legislation, and judicial scrutiny continue to take shape. The Supreme Court's insistence on CRDA's presence reflects an important point: compromises cannot obscure public law concerns.