1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4269/2010. Tek Singh. vs. Board of Revenue and others. Date : 29.4.2010 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.RDS Sidhu, for the petitioner. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner himself obtained the order dated 21.4.2010 from the Board of Revenue by giving consent so as to give possession of the agriculture land to the respondent who is co- sharer in the land in question on cash security of Rs.1,000/- per bigha and yet challenged the order dated 21.4.2010. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, it is true that the consent was given by the petitioner but that consent was void. However, learned counsel for the petitioner failed to show any reason or ground for stating that the consent given by the petitioner was void. Then learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the relief granted by the Board of Revenue is beyond the jurisdiction as the Board of Revenue could not have passed the order beyond the scope of revision. For that also, there is no legal basis. The petitioner even had a right to withdraw the entire claim for seeking appointment of 2 receiver on the land in question by moving appropriate application before the revisional court and there is no bar against allowing that relief to the petitioner who is the person seeking relief by moving application has right to withdrew the application itself. For a lesser relief, if the petitioner agreed or gave consent to the offer of the respondent, then also, the agreement and that too in a matter of suit for partition pending in the trial court, cannot be said to be an act which is beyond the scope of revisional court's jurisdiction. Be it as it may be, neither the consent of the petitioner is illegal or void nor the Board of Revenue exceeded beyond the jurisdiction for which none else than the petitioner gave consent. Furthermore, the petitioner is estopped from challenging the order when he himself has obtained the order. In view of the above reasons, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya