Arun Madan, J. - (1.) THE petitioners by this petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate order for quashing the judgment dt. 17.7.1986 passed by the Board of Revenue as well as the judgment dt. 5.11.1984 passed by the Assistant Collector, Bhinmal and that the suit filed by the petitioner should be decreed.
(2.) FACTS relevant for disposal of this petition are epitomised. The petitioners' predecessor in title Taja (since deceased), who was father of petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 to 10 and husband of petitioner No. 5, filed a suit on 21st April, 1975 in the Court of Assistant Collector, Bhinmal for declaration of Khatedari rights in respect of agriculture land measuring 16 bighas of Khasra No. 366 situated in village Bhadvi, Tehsil Bhinmal, District Jalore. The total area of the land bearing Khasra No. 366 is 112 -3 Bighas. The plaintiff Taja's case was that 16 bighas of land lying on the northern side out of the Khasra No. 366 measuring 112 -3 Bighas was his Khatedari land and the remaining portion of the land of Khasra No. 366 was in cultivatory possession of defendant Dharma (since deceased), now represented by defendants No. 2 to 7. It was further alleged by the plaintiff Taja that on account of a mistake, the entire land of Khasra No. 366 was entered in the name of defendant No. 1. It was also alleged by the plaintiff Taja that he had taken the disputed 16 Bighas of land of Khasra No. 366 in exchange of his another field from defendant No. 1 Dharma in the month of Bhadva Badi of Samwat year 2009 and a written deed in respect of which had been executed by the defendant No. 1 Dharma in favour of the plaintiff. In short, on the basis of a deed to be a deed of exchange, the plaintiff Taja claimed Khatedari rights over the disputed 16 Bighas of land of Khasra No. 366 and in his suit he prayed for declaration of his Khatedari rights. The suit was dismissed by the Assistant Collector, Bhinmal vide judgment dated. 5.11.1984. The first appeal was filed before the Revenue Appellate Authority against the judgment dated 5.11.1984 passed by the Assistant Collector, Bhinmal. The first appeal was dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur vide judgment dated 17th June, 1986. The second appeal was preferred before the Board of Revenue, but the same was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide judgment dated 17th July, 1986. Hence, this writ petition. However, the petitioners claiming themselves as legal heirs of the original plaintiff Taja have entered into a compromise with Jugta Ram respondent No. 7 (defendant No. 2) who have prayed that the writ petition should be disposed of on the basis of the compromise dt. 29.6.1995, attested on 4.7.1995 by the Sub -Divisional Officer, Bhinmal. This prayer was opposed by the respondent No. 3 (Achlaram) in reply dt. 29.8.1996 stating inter -alia that Jugta Ram respondent No. 7 (defendant No. 2) has sold the disputed land to Dana and Achla S/o Dharamji (respondent Nos. 2 & 3) for a consideration of Rs. 29,000/ - and a sale -deed was executed on 2nd July, 1988 and it was duly registered and thereby the respondent No. 7 ceased the right or title in the disputed land and, therefore, he is not competent to enter into any compromise in respect of the disputed land and the writ petition cannot be decided in terms of the alleged compromise and that apart, Sarju son of Teja & Smt. Pemi widow of Karma have died. As per registered sale deed dt. 2.7.1988 Jugtaram (respondent No. 7) had sold 16 Bighas of land of Khasra No. 366 to Dana and Achla son of Dharmaji for a consideration of Rs. 29,000/ - but, the petitioners and respondent No. 3 have not produced any document to show that the sale deed dt. 2.7.1988 is not in respect of the land in dispute.
(3.) HENCE , this Court after hearing both the parties framed two questions for determination in this petition and by its order dt. 6.7.1999 decided first question referred to hereinbelow against the respondent No. 7 (defendant No. 2): (1) whether the application dated 5th July, 1997 filed by Shri Jugta Ram respondent No. 7 (defendant No. 2) praying that the writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner be allowed in terms of the compromise arrived at between the petitioner and Jugta Ram (respondent No. 7 - -defendant No. 2), duly attested on 4.7.1995 before the Sub -Divisional Officer, Bhinmal, deserves to be allowed?;