The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of verifying the lawfulness and genuineness of a compromise before passing a decree, particularly in revenue matters, to ensure the protection of rights and the achievement of land reform objectives.

Govind Mathur, J.-By an order dated 24.02.1986 the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer while accepting second appeal preferred by the Respondents No. 4 to 7 and 12 in light of an agreement said to be arrived between the parties decreed the revenue suit for declaring tenancy of the plaintiffs in respect of agricultural land measuring 12.4 bighas in Arazi Nos. 615, 616, 617, 618, 622 and 624 to 635 in village Mawli, District Udaipur. The Board of Revenue by order-dated 06.01.1990 also rejected an application preferred by the petitioners to recall the order-dated 24.02.1986. Aggrieved by both the orders referred above this petition for writ is preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The factual matrix necessary to be marshaled for adjudication of the issue involved is that the plaintiffs Respondents No. 4 to 7 and 12 by way of filing a suit under Sections 88 and 63 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1955”) before the Sub Divisional Officer, Vallabhnagar claimed declaration for khatedari in respect of land measuring 12 ½ bighas situated in Arazi Nos. 615, 617, 619, 622, 626 to 633 and 635. The claim was made with an allegation that out of four brothers viz. Kana, Lalu, Ganga and Khima, all sons of Bhopa Bheel, except Khima sold their share in the ancestral land to the plaintiffs in the year samvat 2009 and possession of the land was given but in revenue records khatedari of the plaintiffs was not entered. The plaintiffs as such asserted their right for declaration of khatedari in the disputed land. The plaintiffs also claimed rights to enter their khatedari with regard to land in dispute on basis of adverse possession.

3. The Defendants No. 1 to 6 in the suit (those are the Petitioners No. 1 to 5 and the Respondents No. 8 to 11 in present writ petition) refuted the allegations made in plaint by way of filing a written statement. The defendants in written statement also averred and alleged that the plaintiffs were having possession over the land in dispute as Shri Kana mortgaged it in samvat 2025 with the plaintiffs and by

five years thereafter the possession of the plaintiffs became as trespasser.

4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Vallabhnagar by Judgment -dated 28.02.1978 rejected the suit. While doing so learned Sub Divisional Officer held that the sale-deed produced by the plaintiffs to substantiate their claim is not admissible in evidence being not registered and also not being properly stamped. The Sub Divisional Officer, Vallabhnagar also held that the plaintiffs failed to prove their possession over the land since samvat 2008-2009. The plaintiffs also failed to prove purchase of land from father of the defendants or by the defendants before coming into force of the Act of 1955, Section 42 of which makes sale, gift and bequest of interest by khatedar tenant belonging to Scheduled Tribe to a person other than Scheduled Tribe void. The defendants are members of Scheduled Tribe and the plaintiffs being Brahmin could have not purchased land from the plaintiffs in view of the provisions of Section 42 of the Act of 1955.

5. By way of filing an appeal before Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur a challenge was given by the plaintiffs to the Judgment dated 28.02.1978 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Vallabhnagar. By Judgment -dated 23.06.1979 the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur affirmed the Judgment -dated 28.02.1978 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Vallabhnagar while rejecting the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, therefore, preferred a second appeal before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan.

6. Counsel for the plaintiffs appellants on 24.02.1986 presented a compromise said to be arrived between the parties on 09.06.1983 and on that basis the Board of Revenue reversed the Judgment of trial Court as well as of Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur. The Board of Revenue in light of terms of compromise decreed the suit by mak