1. Partition dispute concerning agricultural land resolved by consent decree, followed by allegations of unauthorized compromise in subsequent revenue revisions and lack of authorization for legal representation. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 34262
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Nupur Bhati, J
Ramsundar – Appellant
Versus
Chetan Prasad – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8317/2025
Important Points
A party cannot resile from a compromise entered into by their authorized advocate without cogent evidence of lack of instructions. Furthermore, suppression of material facts disentitles a petitioner from seeking discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Subject
Civil - Land Dispute
Act Referred
Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955: S.55, S.88, S.188, S.212, S.221, S.229, S.230
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: O.III R.1, O.III R.4, O.XXIII R.3
Constitution of India: Art.226, Art.227
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: O.III R.1, O.III R.4, O.XXIII R.3
Constitution of India: Art.226, Art.227
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 - Sections 55, 88, 188, 212, 221, 229, and 230 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order III Rules 1 and 4 and Order XXIII Rule 3 - Partition of agricultural land - Challenge to compromise entered into by advocate - Validity of compromise without party's signature - Suppression of material facts - Discretionary relief under Article 226 - Petition dismissed. (Paras 18, 19, 22 and 26)
(B) Authority of Counsel - An advocate duly authorized through a Vakalatnama is competent to act on behalf of the party, including entering into a compromise. A party cannot be permitted to resile from a concluded compromise by subsequently pleading lack of authority without cogent material or contemporaneous action against the advocate. (Paras 19 and 20)
(C) Writ Jurisdiction - The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable, and discretionary. A petitioner must approach the court with clean hands and make full and candid disclosure of all material facts. Suppression of material facts disentitles the litigant from seeking discretionary relief. (Paras 22 and 26)
(D) Supervisory Jurisdiction - Power under Article 227 is limited and not intended for re-appreciating evidence or substituting views. It is exercised only in cases of patent perversity, jurisdictional error, or manifest failure of justice. (Para 24)
Facts of the case:
Following a partition decree dated 22.11.2013 under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the petitioner challenged a subsequent compromise dated 12.07.2021 and related orders of the Board of Revenue. The petitioner contended that the compromise was fraudulent as it was signed by his advocate without his consent or signature, leading to the fragmentation of his land. The respondents contended that the compromise was acted upon, with the issuance of a registered Patta and construction of a boundary wall. It was further alleged that the petitioner suppressed the fact of the Patta issuance and his challenge to the conversion order before the Divisional Commissioner.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to provide cogent evidence that the advocate acted without instructions. The compromise was acted upon by the parties, creating third-party rights. Critically, the petitioner suppressed material facts regarding the registered Patta and conversion proceedings, which is fatal to a petition under Article 226.
Issues: Whether a compromise entered into by an authorized advocate without the client's signature is void, and whether suppression of material facts bars relief under Article 226.
Ratio Decidendi: An advocate's authority via Vakalatnama is recognized under the CPC, and a party cannot disown a compromise without substantial proof of lack of authority. Furthermore, the duty of full disclosure is absolute for those invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court; suppression of material facts precludes discretionary relief.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
(B) Authority of Counsel - An advocate duly authorized through a Vakalatnama is competent to act on behalf of the party, including entering into a compromise. A party cannot be permitted to resile from a concluded compromise by subsequently pleading lack of authority without cogent material or contemporaneous action against the advocate. (Paras 19 and 20)
(C) Writ Jurisdiction - The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable, and discretionary. A petitioner must approach the court with clean hands and make full and candid disclosure of all material facts. Suppression of material facts disentitles the litigant from seeking discretionary relief. (Paras 22 and 26)
(D) Supervisory Jurisdiction - Power under Article 227 is limited and not intended for re-appreciating evidence or substituting views. It is exercised only in cases of patent perversity, jurisdictional error, or manifest failure of justice. (Para 24)
Facts of the case:
Following a partition decree dated 22.11.2013 under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the petitioner challenged a subsequent compromise dated 12.07.2021 and related orders of the Board of Revenue. The petitioner contended that the compromise was fraudulent as it was signed by his advocate without his consent or signature, leading to the fragmentation of his land. The respondents contended that the compromise was acted upon, with the issuance of a registered Patta and construction of a boundary wall. It was further alleged that the petitioner suppressed the fact of the Patta issuance and his challenge to the conversion order before the Divisional Commissioner.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to provide cogent evidence that the advocate acted without instructions. The compromise was acted upon by the parties, creating third-party rights. Critically, the petitioner suppressed material facts regarding the registered Patta and conversion proceedings, which is fatal to a petition under Article 226.
Issues: Whether a compromise entered into by an authorized advocate without the client's signature is void, and whether suppression of material facts bars relief under Article 226.
Ratio Decidendi: An advocate's authority via Vakalatnama is recognized under the CPC, and a party cannot disown a compromise without substantial proof of lack of authority. Furthermore, the duty of full disclosure is absolute for those invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court; suppression of material facts precludes discretionary relief.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Amit Mehta
For the Respondents: Mr. Vikas Bijarnia, Mr. Vishal Sharma
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Amit Mehta
For the Respondents: Mr. Vikas Bijarnia, Mr. Vishal Sharma
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner claims compromise was unauthorized and fraudulent; respondents argue the advocate's authority was valid, the decree was acted upon, and petitioner suppressed material facts requiring dismissal. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
3. Court noted that authorized counsel can enter into compromises under CPC, and that suppression of material facts like issuance of municipal property records disentitles the petitioner to equitable relief. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 )
4. Suppression of material facts in writ jurisdiction warrants dismissal; an advocate with a valid Vakalatnama is empowered to enter into compromises absent proof of clear lack of authority. (Para 19 , 22 , 26 )
5. The writ petition is dismissed for lack of merit and suppression of material facts, thereby upholding the impugned orders of the revenue authority. (Para 27 , 28 )
6. Can a party challenge a compromise entered into by their advocate on grounds of unauthorized consent?
A party cannot unilaterally disown a compromise entered into by an advocate holding a valid Vakalatnama merely by raising an afterthought plea, especially without providing cogent material or taking contemporaneous action against the counsel for acting outside instructions. (Para 19 , 20 )
7. What is the consequence of suppressing material facts when invoking the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226?
A petitioner must disclose all relevant facts with full candour. Suppression of material facts, such as the existence of consequential administrative actions or pending proceedings, is a valid ground for the Court to dismiss a writ petition at the threshold without considering its merits, as this equitable jurisdiction requires coming with clean hands. (Para 22 , 26 )
8. To what extent can the High Court review a compromise order passed by a revenue tribunal under its supervisory jurisdiction?
The Court's supervisory jurisdiction is limited; it cannot function as an appellate authority to re-appreciate evidence or substitute findings unless there is a patent perversity or jurisdictional error. Disputed questions of fact, such as those regarding an advocate's specific instructions, are not triable in writ proceedings. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 )
Order
02/11/2026
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:
“A. Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 23.07.2021 (Annex.16) passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer in Revision Petition No./T.A./2111/2019, along with the order dated 22.01.2025 (Annex.18) dismissing the review petition;
B. By an appropriate writ, order or direction order may kindly issue and declare the compromise deed dated 12.07.2021 (Annex.15) as illegal, void ab initio, and unenforceable, as the same was executed without the consent and signature of the petitioner, in violation order of the order dated 22.11.2013; (Annex-3)
C. By an appropriate writ, order or direction order may kindly issue and direct the respondents to execute and enforce the decree dated 22.11.2013 as per the original partition terms recorded in Revenue Case No. 43/2013, without any modification arising out of the fraudulent compromise dated 12.07.2021 (Annex.15)
D. By an appropriate writ, order or direction order may kindly issue and restrain the respondents, their agents, assignees, or any person claiming through them from interfering with the petitioner's lawful possession and enjoyment of the property as order per the order dated 22.11.2013; (Annex.3)
Ε. By an appropriate writ, order or direction order may kindly issue and direct an inquiry into the fraudulent execution of the compromise dated 12.07.2021 (Annex.15) and take appropriate legal action against those responsible for misleading the Board of Revenue through fraud, misrepresentation, and suppression of material facts;
F. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem it just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be issued.
G. Costs of this writ petition may kindly be may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.”
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that the dispute arises out of Revenue Suit No.43/2013, titled Surajdevi & Others Vs. Kaushlyadevi & Others, instituted under Sections 55, 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, seeking partition, declaration and permanent injunction in respect of agricultural land originally recorded as Old Khasra No.2466, measuring 5 Bigha 16 Biswa, purchased by Shri Charbhuja Lime & Chemical Industry, Merta, through a registered sale-deed dated 12.02.1976. Subsequently, the land was renumbered as Khasra Nos.2322, 2323 and 2324. Pursuant to a compromise dated 20.11.2013 arrived at between the legal heirs of the erstwhile partners, namely Ashok Kumar, Shyamsundar Heda and Gopalkrishna, their respective shares of 1 Bigha 19 Biswa, 1 Bigha 18 Biswa and 1 Bigha 19 Biswa were determined, and a partition decree was passed by the competent court on 22.11.2013, restraining the parties from interfering with each other's respective shares. Thereafter, the legal heirs of Shyamsundar Heda transferred their share to Mohammad Haroon and Dharmichand vide registered sale-deed dated 24.12.2013, while Gopalkrishna transferred his share to Ramsundar and Rajkumar vide sale-deed dated 05.03.2014. Subsequently, Mohammad Haroon and Dharmichand also transferred their purchased share to Ramsundar and Rajkumar through a registered sale-deed dated 03.07.2014.
3. It is further averred that in violation of the aforesaid compromise and partition decree, Surajdevi and Others executed a sale-deed dated 08.05.2015 in favour of Chetan Prasad Jat and Shobharam Jat, who allegedly developed a residential colony in the agricultural land without obtaining requisite conversion, under the name and style of M.R.D. Nagar. Certain plots were thereafter transferred to other purchasers through registered sale-deeds dated 01.07.2015 and 01.05.2018. The petitioners alleged that the respondents attempted to interfere with their lawful possession and rights, despite the recital in the sale-deed d
