PYARELAL Vs. NIHAL SINGH & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant assailing order dated 18.12.2014 passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer(for short 'the Board of Revenue') whereby it allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff-Respondent No. 1.

(2.) The plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 filed a suit for declaration, correction of entries and permanent injunction against the petitioner-defendant before the Assistant Collector, Bharatpur(for short 'the Assistant Collector') under Sections 88, 89 and 189 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955(for short 'the Act') with regard to the land bearing Khasra No. 2003, 2004, 2005 total measuring 0.95 hectare situated at Village Tuhiya, Tehsil and District Bharatpur.

(3.) The defendant-petitioner filed written statement in the suit. During pendency of the proceedings before the Assistant Collector, a compromise was arrived at between the parties. According to the petitioner, what was agreed was that the land in dispute shall be divided in equal part. 8 aire of land of Pyarelal was to be handed over to plaintiff-Respondent No.1, Nihal Singh. Learned Assistant Collector vide order dated 31.10.2011, on the basis of aforesaid compromise, decreed the suit as per Section 53 of the Act and passed preliminary decree and appointed Tehsildar, Bharatpur to prepare consequential report. The defendant-petitioner then filed application before the Assistant Collector for cancellation of preliminary decree dated 31.10.2011 passed on the basis of compromise. The petitioner filed appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bharatpur (for short 'the Revenue Appellate Authority') against the preliminary decree dated 31.10.2011 passed by the Assistant Collector. The Revenue Appellate Authority vide judgment dated 28.03.2014 set aside preliminary decree and remanded matter to Assistant Collector to decide the same on its merits afresh. However, the Revenue Appellate Authority, while setting aside judgment and decreed passed by the Assistant Collector, directed the Assistant Collector to decide the suit on merits in accordance with law. Being aggrieved of order of Revenue Appellate Authority, Respondent No. 1 filed an appeal before Board of Revenue. Board of Revenue, while allowing the appeal vide judgment dated 18.12.2014, had held that Revenue Appellate Authority could not have set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Assistant Collector, as the application, for cancellation of that judgment and decree filed by the defendant-petitioner on the ground that his consent was obtained by undue influence, was still pending, but at the same time Board of Revenue in the operative portion has observed that compromise arrived at between the parties was in conformity with the provisions of Section 53 of the Act and Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Government) Rules, 1955 (for short 'the Rules'), thus, such compromise cannot be said to be opposed to law.