At, High Court of Rajasthan
By, THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ARUN MISHRA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI
For the Appellant: Sabir Khan, Advocate. For the Respondents: -------
1. This intra-court appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 09.03.2011 in SB Civil Writ Petition No.5038/2010.
2. The brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that appellant-petitioner, by way of the above writ petition, sought quashing of the impugned order dated 23.04.2010 passed by the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer and judgm
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ent dated 06.07.2009 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Jahajpur, Bhilwara and further prayed that the judgment rendered by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bhilwara may kindly be ordered to be restored with all consequential benefits.
3. Appellant further submitted in the writ petition that Smt. Geeta respondent No. 4 relinquished her right in the ancestral property on 21.09.1992. However, on 04.07.1997, she filed a suit for declaration of Khatedari Right and entering her name as co tenant in the revenue record regarding the ancestral property. On 18.12.2008, the judgment passed by Board of Revenue, Ajmer and the matter was remanded to S.D.O. Jahajpur, Bhilwara for deciding the matter afresh.
4. The petitioner preferred the application before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer for restoration of the appeal. However, the same was dismissed by the Board of Revenue. Sub Divisional Officer, Jahajpur, Bhilwara also dismissed the application preferred by the petitioner on 06.07.2009.
5. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 09.03.2011, the appellant has preferred this intra court appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned judgment dated 09.03.2011 deserves to be quashed and set aside as the learned Single Judge failed to consider the contentions raised by the appellant-petitioner. The appellant has clearly alleged in the writ petition that the compromise has been allegedly entered into under coercion and therefore, the consideration of the compromise arrived at between the parties requires to be reconsidered.
7. The counsel for the appellant further contended that the learned Single Judge passed the order without considering the arguments raised by appellant because the learned Single judge has considered that the appellant can take recourse to any other remedy but in accordance with law appellant was cheated in as much as the coercive method was applied for arriving at the compromise.
8. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant and also perused the order of the learned Single Judge and the facts narrated in the writ petition as well as reply.
9. Learned Single Judge has considered all the aspects. The learned Single Judge observed that the decree has passed by the Sub Divisional Officer is not in any manner at variance with the terms of the compromise between the parties whereby 2 bighas and 2 biswas of land comprised in khasra No. 1171/2 on the western side of the land shall go to the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and the remaining land of khasra No. 1171/2 and that of khasra no. 1172 shall go to the petitioners. The decree so p