RAJENDER MOHAN RANA Vs. PREM PRAKASH CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present intra-Court appeal under clause X of the letters patent, the challenge is to the order dated 8th February, 2010 allowing W.P.(C) 101/2008 filed by Prem Prakash Chaudhary and others, the respondents herein.

(2.) Rajinder Mohan Rana and Surinder Mohan Rana, the two appellants herein and Prem Prakash Chaudhary and Shri Man Mohan Singh are brothers being sons of late Siri Lal, who expired on 8 th October, 1984. Siri Lal was owner or bhumidhar of agricultural land measuring 33 Bighas and 3 Biswas situated in village Ghwara, Delhi. After death of Siri Lal, they became joint bhumidhars of the aforesaid land. The aforesaid mutations were carried out in the revenue records on 20 th March, 1985. However, before the said date there was a family settlement on 26 th December, 1984 between the four of them whereby they agreed to divide the land into four parts and each of the brothers got possession of their respective portions of the land. In 1988, Prem Prakash Chaudhary and Man Mohan Singh filed a civil suit against Rajinder Mohan Rana and Surinder Mohan Rana seeking restrain against them from selling, dispossessing or otherwise interfering in the land which had fallen in the share of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 herein in pursuance to the family settlement dated 26 th December, 1984. During the pendency of the said suit, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement before the appointed Panchas and an award dated 14 th May, 1989 was signed by the four brothers. Thereafter, an application under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed before the Civil Court, in which they admitted that the agricultural land was divided/partitioned amongst them. The Civil Court on 3 rd August, 1989 recorded statements of the parties in support of the compromise and dismissed the suit as compromised.

(3.) The respondent Nos.1 and 2 approached the Tehsildar, Najafgarh for mutation of their respective portions of land. Vide order dated 9 th June, 1995, mutation was allowed in terms of the compromise application. Tehsildar has observed that since the Civil Court had passed a decree on the basis of the compromise, the Revenue Officer was not required to go into the intricacies/merits of the order, but was required to implement the judgment and decree.