Musammat Gulab and Another vs Board of Revenue and Others

Narendra Kumar Jain, J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellants. The challenge in this special appeal is the order of Single Bench dt. 27.03.2012, whereby writ petition filed by petitioners/appellants, against order of Revenue Board dt. 07.06.2011, has been dismissed.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that one late Shri Bhura, husband of appellant No. 1 Mst. Gulab, was having 1/4th share in land in dispute. Shri Bhura died and the land belonging to him was mutated in the name of his father Shri Rameshwar by Gram Panchayat, Pratappura vide mutation No. 51 dt. 12.06.1972. The mutation entry/order was challenged by petitioners on the ground that they were legal heirs of late Shri Bhura. The Sub Divisional Officer, Amer allowed the appeal and cancelled the mutation and remanded the matter to Gram Panchayat for decision afresh. The order of S.D.O. was challenged by Rameshwar before Divisional Commissioner, who remanded the matter to the Tehsildar for fresh decision. Thereafter, a compromise took place between the parties on 10.11.2004, whereby petitioners surrendered their rights in respect of the land in dispute on payment of Rs. 7 Lacs. The Tehsildar noticed the compromise dt. 10.11.2004 and on that basis he restored Mutation No. 51 dt. 12.06.1972 in favour of Rameshwar. The petitioners challenged the order of Tehsildar dt. 28.04.2006 passed on the basis of compromise before Divisional Commission on the ground that compromise was entered into a criminal proceeding, but the same was not binding in the present case. The Divisional Commissioner without considering the compromise dt. 10.11.2004 remanded the matter again to Tehsildar to pass fresh order according to law with reference to provisions of Hindu Succession Act. The respondent No. 4 - Rameshwar challenged the order of Divisional Commissioner dt. 15.04.2009 before Revenue Board. The Board of Revenue vide order dt. 07.06.2011 allowed the revision petition and set aside the order of Divisional Commissioner. The order of Revenue Board was challenged before Single Bench. The Single Bench has dismissed the writ petition of the petitioners. Hence the petitioners have preferred this special appeal.

Submission of learned counsel for the appellants before Courts below was that compromise was entered into in a criminal proceedings, therefore, it was not binding in the revenue proceedings. Counsel for the appellant submitted before this Court that appellants are not claiming any share in the land of Rameshwar, but they are claiming share of deceased Bhura (husband of appellant No. 1), who was having share in the land of his father Rameshwar. He, therefore, submitted that compromise has wrongly been interpreted by Tehsildar as well as Board of Revenue and also by Single Bench. Therefore, appeal be allowed and impugned orders be set aside.

We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and examined the impugned order passed by Single Bench.

The contents of compromise dt. 10.11.2004 particularly Paras 4 to 7 of the compromise have been reproduced in Para 7 of the order of Single Bench. Para 6 of the compromise makes it clear that non-petitioner No. 2 i.e. present appellant No. 1 has entered into a compromise and had agreed that she will not claim any right in the land of Rameshwar and his legal heirs. The legal heir of Rameshwar includes Bhura, the husband of appellant. Counsel for the appellants does not dispute that a lump sum amount of Rs. 7 Lacs in pursuance of condition No. 6 of the compromise, has been received by appellant. From the compromise, it is clear that appellant had settled the dispute with respondent No. 4 Rameshwar in respect of movable and immovable properties, not only of Rameshwar, but his legal heirs also. In these circumstances, the matter had already been settled between the parties by way of compromise dt, 10.11.2004. The Board of Revenue rightly acted upon the compromise. Learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition of the petitioners. We find no force in the submission of learned counsel for the appellants. In view of above, we find no merit in this special appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. Stay Application No. 7715/2012 also stands dismissed.