The Revenue Court has jurisdiction to grant main and ancillary reliefs in land disputes, and a compromise decree obtained fraudulently is void.

Order :

1. The present special appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 04.05.2015 passed by learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.417/1996 whereby the writ petition as preferred by the petitioners against order dated 11.01.1996 passed by the Board of Revenue, was dismissed.

2. A brief history of the matter is as under:

i. A suit for permanent injunction was filed under Section 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act of 1955’) by one Fateh Lal against his sons and one Smt. Chunni Bai. The said suit was dismissed on 25.10.1960 because of non-impleadment of Lehar Bai, his wife in whose favour Fateh Lal had already executed a document dated 26.12.1958 and had handed over the land in question to her for maintenance as she was living separately from her husband Fateh Lal.

ii. The order dated 25.10.1960 was challenged by Fateh Lal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘RAA’) who vide order dated 06.02.1962 remanded the matter to Sub-Divisional Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘SDO’) with a direction to implead Lehar Bai as a party respondent to the suit. The order of remand was affirmed by the Board of Revenue (hereinafter referred to as ‘BOR’).

iii.In pursuance to the remand order, the SDO, vide judgment and decree dated 29.04.1967, decreed the suit in favour of Fateh Lal. The appeal against the said decree also stood dismissed.

iv. However, the BOR set aside the orders passed by the SDO as well as the RAA vide its judgment dated 03.01.1968 and again remanded the matter to SDO with a direction to decide afresh.

v. Meanwhile, Fateh Lal, vide sale-deed dated 24.06.1967, sold out the land in question to Sohan Lal son of Magan Lal who at that point of time, was not aware of pendency of any suit qua the land in question.

vi. When Sohan Lal subsequently came to know about pendency of the suit, he filed an application under Order 22 Rule 10, CPC on 21.08.1969/18.11.1969 for being impleaded in the suit. The next date fixed in the matter was 26.02.1970. Before the said application could be decided, an application for preponing the date in the matter was filed by Fateh Lal on 22.01.1970 with a submission that a compromise has been arrived into between the parties and hence the suit be decreed in light of the said compromise.

vii. On 29.01.1970, the suit was decreed in terms of the compromise and as per the decree, the property was to remain with Lehar Bai and income as received by the receiver during the said period was directed to be handed over to Lehar Bai. It is relevant to note here that during this period, the property in question was in possession of a receiver.

viii. On coming to know about the above compromise decree, Sohan Lal filed a suit on 20.04.1971 under Sections 88 & 183 of the Act of 1955 for declaration and possession with a submission that the compromise decree dated 29.01.1970 was a collusive one obtained fraudulently by Fateh Lal and Lehar Bai and the same deserves to be declared void qua him and the possession of the land deserves to be handed over to him.

ix. The suit as filed by Sohan Lal was decreed in his favour vide judgment and decree dated 07.04.1980 and the appeal preferred against the said decree also stood dismissed on 18.05.1985. The second appeal preferred by legal representatives of Fateh Lal and Lehar Bai also stood dismissed.

x. It is relevant to note here that at the first instance, there was a conflict of decision of two members of the Board of Revenue and hence, the same was referred to a third member. The third member, vide order dated 11.01.1996, agreed with the view of member Mr. Mathew and affirmed the orders of both the two Courts below.

xi. It is against the said order dated 11.01.1996 that the writ petition was preferred by the petitioners i.e. legal representatives of Fateh Lal and Lehar Bai which stood dismissed vide the judgment impugned dated 04.05.2015.

3. Before the learned Single Judge the following thre