Point of Law: Revenue authority had passed compromise decree in respect of lands then no cause of action or occasion can be said to have arisen to plaintiff for instituting subsequent suit.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed on behalf of the Petitioners that this Writ Petition may kindly be allowed:

(I) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the Impugned Judgment dated 01.11.2022 (Annex.18) passed by the Learned Board of Revenue in Appeal No. 1866/2011 be quashed and set aside.

(II) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the Impugned Judgment and Decree dated 11.03.2011 (Annex.12) passed by the Learned Revenue Appellate Authority in Appeal No. 1/2010 be quashed and set aside.

(III) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the Appeal (Annex.6) preferred by the Respondent No. 2 be dismissed in toto and the judgment and decree dated 25.04.2005 (Annex.5) be upheld.

(IV) Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the Petitioner.”

2. In bare essentials, the facts giving rise to this appeal are that original plaintiff-Madan Lal (since deceased, represented through his legal representatives (sons) in the present petition) claiming himself to be the sole khatedar (upon demise of all the other khatedars) and being in cultivatory possession, for a long period, of certain agricultural lands situated in Village Naradhana Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur, had instituted a suit for declaration of khatedari rights and the rectification/correction in the revenue records.

2.1 The said suit was instituted before the Assistant Collector (S.D.O.) Jayal (‘trial court’) while impleading the State of Rajasthan, through the Tehsildar, Jayal, District Nagaur as the sole defendant. The said revenue authority, vide its judgment and decree dated 25.04.2005, decreed the suit ex parte in favour of the original plaintiff; as recorded in the said judgment and decree, despite issuance of summons, no one has put in appearance to contest the said suit on behalf the defendant, and therefore, the suit was proceeded ex parte, culminating into passing of the said judgment and decree.

2.2 The aforesaid judgment and decree was challenged by present respondent No. 2 Kamal Kishore S/o Late Sh. Sada Sukh by preferring an appeal before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Nagaur. In the said appeal, it was alleged that the aforementioned suit, as instituted, ought not have been entertained by the learned trial court, as while filing the said suit, the original plaintiff, despite knowing the fact that Late Smt. Gulab Devi (wife of the original plaintiff’s elder brother Late Sh. Sadasukh) - one of the khatedars, was survived by a son (Kamal Kishore) and two daughters (Smt. Radha Devi & Smt. Sarla Devi), did not array any of them as the party defendants in the suit.

2.3 The learned Revenue Appellate Authority vide the impugned judgment dated 11.03.2011, while deciding the appeal, has quashed and set aside the judgment and decree dated 25.04.2005 passed by the learned trial court, while observing that the said suit was void ab initio.

2.4 Alongwith the appeal, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for taking certain documents on record, was also preferred by the respondent No. 2 herein, followed by an application preferred under the same provision of law on behalf of the original plaintiff and his son, before the said revenue authority. Both the said applications, preferred by the parties, as recorded in the impugned judgment dated 11.03.2011, were allowed, and the documents, as mentioned in the said applications, being relevant for the purpose of adjudication, were taken on record.

2.5 Against the aforesaid impugned judgment dated 11.03.2011, the original plaintiff-Late Madan Lal and his son Suresh (one of the petitioners herein) preferred an appeal before the learned Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, alleging therein, amongst others, that despite the observation made by the learned Revenue Appellate Au