1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1128/1998 Bhairon Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 1st December 2010 HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.M.S.Singhvi for the petitioners Mr.Shanker Singh for Mr.Sandeep Bhandawat for the State Mr.J.L.Purohit for the respondents Nos.4 to 9 Mr.Vikas Balia for the respondents Nos.10 to 17 Mr.J.R.Beniwal for the respondent No.18 BY THE COURT: This writ petition has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 10.12.1997 passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer (‘the Board’) in Appeal (Decree) No.284/91/Sirohi whereby the Board , while allowing the second appeal, proceeded to decree the revenue suit that was filed by the plaintiffs Bhabhuta Ram, Bhera Ram and Chhoga [Revenue Suit No.7/1983 in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Sirohi] This writ petition was admitted for consideration on 18.08.2004 and status quo of the property in question was ordered to be maintained. The plaintiff Bhabhuta Ram has expired and is represented by his son Thana Ram (respondent No.4). The plaintiff Bhera Ram has also expired and is represented by his sons Neta Ram and Chimana Ram (respondent Nos.7 & 8) and so also by respondents Nos.6/1 to 6/7 who are the legal representatives of Mohan Lal, deceased son of Bhera Ram. The original plaintiff Chhoga son of Lumbaji is on record as respondent No.9. 2 In this writ petition, on her application the respondent No.18 Dharmi Bai was ordered to be impleaded as party respondent on 02.08.1999. The respondents Nos.4,7 and 9 have filed an application (IA No.5409/2009) with the submissions that they have entered into a compromise with the petitioners; and in terms of the compromise, they seek permission to withdraw the original suit (Revenue Suit No.7/1983). Yet another application (IA No.13086/2009) has been filed by the respondent No.8 stating his having entered into a separate compromise with the petitioners; and in terms thereof, he too seeks permission to withdraw the said Revenue Suit No.7/1983. Another application (IA No.16242/2009) has been moved by respondent Nos.6/1 to 6/3 with the submissions that they too have entered into a separate compromise with the petitioners; and in terms thereof, they too seek permission to withdraw the said suit. It has also been stated that the respondents Nos.6/4 to 6/7 have released their share in favour of the respondents Nos.6/1 to 6/3; and a copy of of release deed dated 29.11.2003 has been placed on record. Yet another application (IA No.16208/2010) has been filed by the respondent No.18 stating her no objection for decision of matter in view of the compromise that has taken place between the parties. From the material placed on record, it appears that the aforesaid plaintiffs filed the suit seeking declaration of khatedari rights in their favour. The suit was dismissed by the learned Trial 3 Court on 03.01.1987. The first appeal preferred by the plaintiffs was dismissed by Revenue Appellate Authority on 30.05.1991. However, the Board of Revenue allowed the second appeal preferred by the plaintiffs and decreed the suit as prayed. From perusal of different applications filed by the plaintiffs and/or their legal representatives and the different deeds of compromise annexed thereto, it appears that the contesting parties have settled their dispute concerning this litigation and it is just and proper to allow the applications referred hereinabove with consequential orders. Accordingly, the applications (IA Nos.5409/2009, 13086/2009, 16242/2009 and 16208/2010) are allowed; the plaintiffs/legal representatives of the plaintiffs (respondent No.4, 6/1 to 6/3, 7, 8 and 9) are permitted to withdraw the original suit (Revenue Suit No.7/1983) and the suit is dismissed as withdrawn. As a necessary corollary, the impugned judgment and decree dated 10.12.1997 as passed by the Board of Revenue are rendered redundant and stand annulled. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent and in the manner indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. MK