Back
2012 Supreme(Raj) 395
(Rajasthan High Court)
Jaipur Bench
Gulab (Mst.) & Anr. Vs. B.O.R. & Ors. (Sharma, J.)
HON'BLE ALOK SHARMA, J.
Gulab (Mst.) & Anr.
Versus
Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer & Ors.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10080 of 2011, decided on 27.03.2012
Jitendra Kumar Sharma, for Petitioners
Headnote:Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, Sec. 75 — Whether a compromise before a criminal court is of no avail in proceedings before the civil courts — Held — A compromise before a court is binding universally between the parties thereto whether the compromise is in the course of civil proceedings or criminal proceedings — The compromise was entered into between the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent No. 4 with regard to the disputed property albeit in a criminal proceedings acted upon and further not put to challenge before any court — The terms of the said compromise, therefore, are determinative for the adjudication of a revenue suit wherein the same relief regarding a property dispute is sought to be re-agitated. (Paras 17 to 20)
Writ petition dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/-
to be paid to State Legal Services Authority.
jktLFkku Hkw-jktLo vf/kfu;e] 1956] /kkjk 75 & D;k fdlh QkStnkjh U;k;ky; ds le{k fd;k x;k jkthukek flfoy U;k;ky; ds le{k dk;Zokgh esa mi;ksxh ugha gksrk\ & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & fdlh Hkh U;k;ky; ds le{k fd;k x;k jkthukek mu i{kdkjksa ds e/; lkoZHkkSfed :i ls ck/;dkjh gksxk pkgs og jkthukek nhokuh dk;Zokgh ds vuqØe esa gks ;k QkStnkjh dk;Zokgh ds vuqØe esa & ;g jkthukek izkFkhZ la- 1 vkSj izR;FkhZ la- 4 ds e/; fookfnr lEifr ds lEcU/k esa gqvk Fkk tks QkStnkjh dk;Zokgh esa gksus ij Hkh ml ij vey fd;k x;k vkSj vkxs fdlh Hkh U;k;ky; esa mls pqukSrh ugha nh xbZ & mDr jkthukesa ds fucU/ku jktLo U;k;ky; ds U;k; fu.kZ;kFkZ vo/kkjd gS ftlesa fookfnr lEifr ckcr ogh vuqrks"k pkgus gsrq mBk;k x;k gSA ¼in la-17 ls 20½
;kfpdk 10]000@-#- dh dher lfgr [kkfjt dh
tks jkT; fof/kd lsok izkf/kdj.k dks ns; gksxhA
2. The facts of the case are that one Bhura died on 10.06.1971 leaving behind his wife Mst. Gulab (petitioner No.1 herein) and daughter Smt. Sita (petitioner No.2 herein). It appears that in respect of lands falling in khasra Nos.60, 61, 156 to 162 measuring 50 bighas 10 biswas and khasra Nos.155, 159 & 62 measuring 6 bighas 16 biswas of Village Pratappura, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur, Bhura had ¼ share. However, following Bhura's death, lands in his khatedari were mutated by the Gram Panchayat Pratappura vide mutation No.51 dated 12.06.1972 in the name of respondent No.4, Rameshwar, the father-in-law of the petitioner No.1, Gulab. The said mutation No.51 dated 12.06.1972 was challenged by the petitioners by way of an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, Amer on 06.09.1982. The SDO, Amer vide his order dated 12.12.2001 accepted the petitioners' appeal and cancelled the mutation No.51 dated 12.06.1972 and remanded the case to the Gram Panchayat Jaisinghpura, Tehsil Amer for decision afresh. Against the order dated 12.12.2001, Rameshwar filed a further appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur and the Divisional Commissioner was pleased to remand the matter to the Tehsildar, Amer for decision afresh. On the matter coming up before the Tehsildar, Amer, the Tehsildar, Amer noticed the admitted compromise dated 10.11.2004 entered into between the petitioners and Rameshwar and vide order dated 28.04.2006, restored mutation No.51 dated 12.06.1972 in the name of Rameshwar.
3. Purportedly, aggrieved of the order dated 28.04.2006, passed by the Tehsildar, Amer on the basis of the compromise between the parties made a part of proceedings withdrawn before the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, No.2, Jaipur in a criminal proceeding, the petitioners after having obtained Rs.7 lakhs (Rupees Seven Lakhs) under the compromise moved an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. The Divisional Commissioner overlooking the compromise dated 10.11.2004 between the parties as also the passing of the consideration of Rs.7 lakhs to the petitioners thereunder focused on the purported legal rights of the parties under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and vide his order dated 15.04.2009 remanded the matter to the Tehsildar, Amer to pass fresh orders in accordance with law more particularly with reference to the provisions of Hindu Succession Act as would operate on Bhura's death.
4. Aggrieved of the order dated 15.04.2009, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur in an appeal overlooking and side-stepping a duly recorded and admitted compromise, the respondent No.4, Rameshwar filed a revision under Section 76 of the Revenue Act before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer. The Board of Revenue vide its order dated 07.06.2011 accepted the revision and set aside the order dated 15.04.2009 passed by the Divisional Commissioner holding that in the context of the compromise dated 10.11.2004 between the parties it was an absolutely improper exercise of jurisdiction by the Divisional Commissioner to direct the determination of the purported right of the parties in the Hindu Succession Act afresh notwithstanding the duly recorded compromise between the parties.
5. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and perused the writ petition.
6. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the admitted compromise dated 10.11.2004 between the parties also reflected in the petitioner's application before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, No.2, Jaipur in Criminal revision No.98/2003 (Annexure 2), and the withdrawal of the criminal proceedings against Rameshwar thereon and further consideration of Rs.7 lakhs availed by the petitioners, notwithstanding the petitioners have a legal right to pursue their civil remedies in view of the fact that the said compromise was limited to
