Consent orders based on compromises cannot be reviewed unless substantial illegality is established; lawyers possess inherent authority to compromise on behalf of their clients.

JUDGMENT :

Ganesh Ram Meena, J.

Briefly stated facts of the case are that Bhoti and Kadam (respondent No.1) filed a suit for partition and permanent injunction under the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act of 1955') before the Court of the Assistant Collector, Mahwa.

2. During the pendency of the suit the parties entered into an amicable settlement on 01.07.2000 and on the basis of the said compromise the trial court vide order dated 20.11.2001 passed a final decree.

3. Bhoti and Kadam (respondent No.1) feeling aggrieved by the final judgment and decree dated 20.11.2001 preferred an appeal before the Court of Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur (for short 'the First Appellate Authority'). The First Appellate Authority vide judgment dated 08.10.2002 allowed the appeal and remitted the matter back to the trial court for decision afresh.

4. The Court of Sub Divisional Officer, Mahwa (Dausa) [for short 'the trial court'] after being matter remitted back to it by the First Appellate Court heard the matter again and after making the scrutiny of the material available on the record issued a preliminary decree on 30.08.2006.

Being aggrieved by the preliminary decree dated 30.08.2006, Ghisya preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority which was allowed vide judgment dated 02.01.2009 and set aside the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2006 and remanded the matter to the trial court to decide the matter afresh as per the directions dated 08.10.2002.

5. In view of the remand made, the arguments were heard again and on the basis of the compromise dated 01.07.2000 the trial court decreed the suit and issued the preliminary decree on 23.07.2010.

6. Against the preliminary decree dated 23.07.2010 the petitioners preferred an Appeal No.68/2010 before the First Appellate Authority. During the pendency of the appeal, the trial court on 23.09.2010 passed a final decree.

7. Against the final decree dated 23.09.2010 the petitioners preferred an appeal No. 90/2010 before the First Appellate Authority which was dismissed vide judgment dated 08.10.2015.

8. Against the judgment dated 08.10.2015 passed by the First Appellate Court in Appeal No. 68/2010, second Appeal No. 6575 was preferred before the Court of Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer (for short 'the Second Appellate Authority') which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 27.02.2020 in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

9. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the challenge to the orders of the Board of Revenue, the Revenue Appellate Authority so also the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer.

10. Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in the compromise arrived at between the parties, the petitioners have been assigned less share though they were entitled for the equal share with the respondents. Therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the trial court as well as the orders of the Appellate Courts are illegal and perverse and deserve to be quashed and set aside.

11. Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the trial court passed the judgment and decree on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties and the Appellate Courts also after making scrutiny of the material, affirmed the judgment and decree. There are concurrent findings of all the three courts below. Since the petitioners could not point out any illegality or perversity, therefore, no interference is called for in exercise of powers conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

12. Considered the submissions made by both the cou