Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shivcharan vs Gurcharan Singh & Ors on 25 September, 2013
Author: Vineet Kothari
Bench: Vineet Kothari
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10138/2013
Shiv Charan Vs. Gurcharan Singh & Ors.
Order dt: 25/09/2013
1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
ORDER
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10138/2013
Shiv Charan Vs. Gurcharan Singh & Ors.
DATE OF ORDER ::: 25th September, 2013
PRESENT
HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
Mr. H.K. Jain, for the petitioner.
--
BY THE COURT:
1. By the impugned order dated 23.05.2013 passed by learned Single Member of Board of Revenue in Revision/ TA/1103/2012/Sri Ganganagar, whereby the learned Board of Revenue has held that that the orders passed by the revenue court below of S.D.O., Karanpur, upon the alleged compromise between the parties was wrong since one of the parties to the compromise, namely, Gurcharan Singh, who had stated before the learned Board of Revenue that the said compromise dated 21.06.2011 was passed when most of the defendants were not even served with the summons of the revenue suit, and therefore, the partial compromise for the land in question was signed by Sh. Gurcharan Singh, who was not in good mental state at that time.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10138/2013 Shiv Charan Vs. Gurcharan Singh & Ors.
Order dt: 25/09/2013 2/3
2. Learned Board of Revenue on the basis of said affidavit submitted by said Gurcharan Singh, has said that the revenue court should not have compelled the parties to enter into a compromise and should have considered the circumstances for withdrawal of the consent from the alleged compromise and, therefore, the revenue suit was restored by the learned Board of Revenue for re-trial in accordance with law on merits.
3. Mr. H.K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shiv Charan, submits that the compromise in question was entered into with free-will and in accordance with law and, therefore, the learned Board of Revenue should have not set aside the consent decree Annex.6 dated 31.01.2012 and, therefore, the said order of Board of Revenue deserves to be set aside.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the order passed by the learned Board of Revenue does not require any interference by this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, in which the compromise, on the basis of which the consent decree is said to have been passed by the learned S.D.O., vide Annex.6 dated 31.01.2012 itself indicates that the said compromise was entered on 21.06.2011 with some of the defendants while some parties had not even been served by that time with the summons of the revenue suit and, therefore, such partial compromise with some of the parties only, was rightly not held binding on the parties concerned by the learned Board of Revenue. Therefore, the suit was restored for re-trial.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10138/2013 Shiv Charan Vs. Gurcharan Singh & Ors.
Order dt: 25/09/2013 3/3
5. The upshot of above discussion is that the present writ petition filed by the petitioner has no force and no interference is called for in the impugned order. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith.
(Dr. VINEET KOTHARI), J.
DJ/-
28