SBCWP No.15690/10. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15690/2010. Mst.Mahadevi Vs. The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer & Ors. Date of Order:- December 15, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Gajendra Singh Rathore for the petitioner. ******* BY THE COURT:- Contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that petitioner happens to be the real daughter of Lallu Ram – respondent No.5 claiming the land in dispute on the strength of a Will alleged to have been executed in favour of Lallu Ram whereas, petitioner has disputed genuineness of that Will and filed a revenue suit claiming title of the land in dispute. After death of Lallu Ram, mutation was opened in favour of the petitioner by the Tehsildar on the basis of the Will. Mst.Gyarsi, aggrieved thereby, filed an appeal before the Additional District Collector Alwar, who while allowing the appeal vide order dated 11/5/2000, remanded the matter. Respondent No.4 filed an appeal before the Additional Divisional Commissioner Jaipur, who vide order dated 19/5/2008 dismissed the appeal. Respondent SBCWP No.15690/10. 2 No.4 thereafter filed revision petition before the Board of Revenue. Respondents No.4 and 5 have illegally compromised the matter and in this manner, the revision petition has been allowed by the Board of Revenue setting aside the orders of the Additional District Collector Alwar and the Additional Divisional Commissioner Jaipur. Learned counsel cited the judgment of Supreme Court in Arjan Singh Vs. Punit Ahluwalia & Ors. : WLC (SC) Civil 2008 (2) 400 and Division Bench judgment of this Court in Purshottam & Ors. Vs. Narain & Ors. : WLC (Raj.) 2008(4) 213 to argue that no compromise can be allowed to stand if it is shown that such compromise occasioned failure of justice or was contrary to the law. He argued that mutation was attested by the Tehsildar, whereas, according to the Notification of the Government dated 13/9/1990, the Tehsildar was not competent to attest the mutation. Even if what petitioner contends is accepted, then also, it cannot help him in any manner because appeal against the order of Additional District Collector Alwar was filed by respondent No.4 and if he has compromised the matter, petitioner can have no role in the matter. The dispute now is between respondent No.4 and the petitioner. Petitioner is at liberty to seek legal remedy before the revenue court where she has filed suit and obviously that court would be unaffected SBCWP No.15690/10. 3 by the order passed in these proceedings and would be entitled to take its own view of the matter. It goes without saying that the Will, on the basis of which, respondent No.4 was claiming right, title and interest in the property and on which basis, mutation was attested in his favour; if annulled by that court, what the petitioner wants will automatically follow. I do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil