Once a settlement has been reached resulting in the withdrawal of a petition, a recalling application may not be maintainable.

ORDER :

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs :

“It is, therefore, prayed that by appropriate writ, order or direction, judgment dated 15.09.2023 (Annexure-12) passed by Board of Revenue in Review/Petition/LR/2023/2765/Jodhpur ‘Mumal Vs Devaram And Others’ may kindly be quashed and set aside and order dated 30.05.2023 (Annexure-6) passed by Board of Revenue in Revision/ Petition/LR/ 2022/ 3237/ Jodhpur ‘Mumal Vs Devaram And Others’ may also be quashed and set aside and Board of Revenue be directed to restore the Revision Petition no.REVISION/LR/NO.3237/2022 and same be decided afresh on merit.

Any other order which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by the learned counsel of the petitioner, are that the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1956’) before the Additional District Collector (Second), Jodhpur against the respondents, stating therein that the petitioner’s father Late Shri Narayan Ram was having an agricultural land comprising khasra no. 138 Rakba 23 Bigha 19 Biswa situated at Village Uchiyarrada and the said land was recorded in the name of Late Narayan Ram. After the demise of the petitioner’s father (Narayan Ram), the land in question through transfer no. 86 dated 22.05.1992, on count of collusion between the respondents no.2 to 4 and the concerned Tehsildar and Patwari, was recorded in the name of the respondent no. 2 to 4, despite the fact that the petitioner falls under the first successor category.

2.1 Thereafter, learned Additional District Collector vide the judgment dated 09.09.2020 dismissed the aforesaid appeal; aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur under Section 76 of the Act of 1956, which was also dismissed vide the judgment dated 10.06.2022.

2.2 Subsequently, the petitioner filed a revision petition under Sections 84 & 9 of the Act of 1956 before the learned Board of Revenue (BOR) for Rajasthan, Ajmer, which however, on account of compromise between the parties and execution of relinquishment/release deed dated 23.05.2023, was sought to be withdrawn by way of filing a withdrawal application, as reflected in the impugned order dated 30.05.2023 passed by the learned BoR.

2.3. The petitioner thereafter, filed a civil suit on 12.07.2023 against the respondent no.2 before the Additional Civil Judge No.2, Jodhpur Metropolitan, laying challenging to the aforementioned relinquishment/release deed, with a prayer for permanent injunction against the respondent no.2.

2.4 Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under Sections 86 and 9 of the Act of 1956 read with Section 151 CPC, before the learned BoR seeking recall of the aforementioned order dated 30.05.2023, stating therein that the aforementioned withdrawal application was wrongly filed under some misconception and under concealment, and thus, the original revision preferred before the learned BoR may be restored. The learned BoR vide the impugned judgment dated 15.09.2023 rejected the said application. Thus, the present petition has been preferred against the order dated 30.05.2023 and the judgment dated 15.09.2023 passed by the learned BoR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an old and illiterate lady aged 70 years, and that, the compromise in question is not sustainable in the eye of law, as the same was executed under material concealment on the part of the respondents, leading to withdrawal of the revision before the learned BoR on 30.05.2023.

3.1. Learned counsel further submits that the withdrawal application in question was filed under wrong impression and material concealment, and that, the petitioner also lodged an FIR against the re