PANCHU S/O SHRI MADHO, BY CASTE MALI, RESIDENT OF TODARAISINGH, TEHSIL TODARAISINGH, DISTRICT TONK (RAJASTHAN) Vs. DEV W/O SHRI BADRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this writ petition for setting aside the order dated 25.02.2014 passed by the Land Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, Tonk, in Appeal No. 131/2012, and order dated 06.09.2016 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, in Appeal/TA/1792/2014/Tonk. Further prayer is made for a direction to the respondents to maintain stats quo regarding revenue record and possession on agriculture land in question situated at Todaraisingh, District Tonk.

(2.) The respondents no.1 to 5, who are legal heirs of Shri Badri, filed a Revenue Suit No. 110/1997, before the Assistant Collector and Executive Magistrate, Todaraisingh, District Tonk, against petitioner for declaration and partition. The petitioner contested the suit. Thereafter on the basis of compromise and mutual partition between the parties, learned Assistant Collector and Executive Magistrate, Todaraisingh, District Tonk, decreed the suit vide judgment dated 22.08.1997. Later on, Smt. Dev W/o late Shri Badri, challenged the judgment dated 22.08.1997 after lapse of more than fifteen years, before the Land Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, Tonk (Rajasthan), in Appeal No. 131/2012 stating that she neither filed any suit for partition nor entered into any compromise with petitioner or with the respondents no.2 to 5, therefore, above mentioned judgment and decree is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The Revenue Appellate Authority, vide judgment dated 25.02.2014, partly allowed the appeal and set aside the said judgment and decree, and remanded the matter with a direction to decide the same afresh in accordance with law after giving full opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed appeal before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer under Sec. 225 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 06.09.2016.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record, this court does not find any error or illegality in the impugned orders. Learned Land Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, vide judgment dated 25.02.2014, only remanded the matter for decision of the matter afresh as per law, which has rightly been upheld by the learned Board of Revenue. Both the parties will have full opportunity to take their defence. The petitioner ought to have felt satisfied with the judgment of learned Land Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, who has merely remanded the matter for fresh decision thereon. He has been set at liberty to raise all the grounds, which he wants to raise, and the same shall be considered by the learned Sub Divisional Officer, Todaraisingh, and the matter shall be decided on merits.