A party's acceptance of prior court decisions and subsequent actions create estoppel, preventing challenges to those decisions based on conduct and acquiescence.

JUDGMENT :

REKHA BORANA, J.

1. The present writ petitions arise out of common questions of law and facts and hence, were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. The brief facts of the case are as under :

(i) A revenue suit for declaration of khatedari rights under Sections 88 and 188 of the RAJASTHAN LAND REVENUE ACT ,1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1956’) was filed by one Girdhari on 17.01.1983 qua Khasra Nos.83, 104 & 108 of Village Chopasani Jagir, District Jodhpur. In the said suit, it was pleaded by Girdhari that he, along with his brother Bhera Ram were the cultivators of the land since years and after death of Bhera Ram, Girdhari was the sole cultivator of the land. It was also averred that notice under Section 91 of the Act of 1956 has been served upon him which deserves to be set aside and the land in question deserves to be declared to be of his khatedari. The suit as preferred by Girdhari was dismissed on 10.08.1989 by the Additional Collector, Jodhpur.

(ii) An appeal against the said order was preferred before the Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA). In the said appeal, an application under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC was preferred by the then Urban Improvement Trust (UIT) which remained undecided. Ultimately, the appeal as preferred by Girdhari was allowed by the RAA vide order dated 21.12.1995 against which a second appeal was preferred by the UIT before the Board of Revenue (BOR).

(iii) In the second appeal before the BOR, an application for impleadment was filed by Smt. Koyali (wife of Bhera Ram, the brother of Girdhari i.e. the original khatedar). However, subsequently, an averment was made on her behalf to the effect that she entered into a settlement with bonafide purchasers of Khasra Nos.83 and 104. On basis of the said averment, her application for impleadment was rejected.

(iv) The above second appeal was allowed by the BOR vide order dated 15.12.2000 and while quashing/setting aside order dated 21.12.1995, it remanded the matter to the RAA with a direction to decide afresh after hearing all the parties including the UIT and after taking into consideration all the documents as placed on record by the UIT.

(v) Smt. Koyali again moved an application for impleadment before the RAA with an averment that although she entered into settlement qua Khasra Nos.83 and 104, her claim for Khasra No.108 does survive and she deserves to be declared the khatedar of the said khasra. It was further averred on her behalf that she would be required to execute sale deeds in favour of the purchasers qua Khasra Nos. 83 and 104 and hence, needs to be impleaded.

(vi) Two persons namely Dwaraka Prasad Taparia (petitioner in SBCWP No.5654/2007) and Vikram Singh Rajvi (petitioner in SBCWP No.5653/2007) also moved an application for impleadment with an averment that they had an agreement to sell executed in their favour by one Harnarayan Heda, the power of attorney holder of the original khatedar Girdhari.

(vii) After remand, the RAA proceeded on to hear the matter afresh and vide order dated 28.06.2003, allowed the appeal as preferred by Girdhari and quashed order dated 10.08.1989. Vide the said order, a relief of permanent injunction was also granted in favour of Girdhari.

So far as Koyali is concerned, the RAA held that as she had already entered into a settlement qua Khasra Nos. 83 and 104, she cannot claim any relief qua the said khasras. So far as Khasra No.108 is concerned, it was observed that Smt. Koyali would be required to file a separate suit for declaration and no relief can be granted to her in the appeal.

(viii) Second appeals against order dated 28.06.2003 passed by the RAA were then filed by the UIT, by Smt. Koyali and a joint appeal by Dwaraka Prasad Taparia and Vikram Singh Rajvi.

(ix) Second appeal filed by the UIT came to be dismissed by the BOR vide order dated 03.09.2003. Second appeal filed by Smt. Koyali stood dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 19.11.2003 as a review petition had alre