IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.140 of 2004. Roshan Singh son of Late Shri Mohar Singh & Others VERSUS The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer & Others Date Of Order ::: 13/03/2008. Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kumar Jain J. Mr. Mukesh Saini and Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinwar, Counsel for the Petitioners Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Counsel for the respondents Mr. V.D. Sharma, Dy.G.A., for the respondents By the Court : Heard learned counsel for the parties. The plaintiff/respondents filed a revenue suit for declaration in the Court of S.D.O. Bharatpur. During the pendency of the suit, both the parties entered into a compromise and the same was placed on record also. However, the trial Court dismissed the suit in view of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Being aggrieved with the same, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, which was allowed vide order dated 21.08.1999, and as per terms of compromise, both the parties were declared recorded tenants of their respective lands. Being aggrieved with the same, the defendants/petitioners preferred second appeal before the Revenue Board, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 08.04.2002, a review petition was also filed before the Revenue Board, which was also dismissed vide order dated 14.02.2003. The learned counsel for the defendants/ petitioners contended that the compromise was entered into in between both the parties in violation of Section 42 of the Act, therefore, the impugned decree passed by the Revenue Appellate Court as well as Revenue Board, both are liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the respondents defended the judgment passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority as well as Revenue Board. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also examined the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below. The old Khasra number of the disputed land was 2215 measuring 3 bigha 8 biswas. The new khasra number of the above land is 2560 measuring 0.35 air and 2561 measuring 0.32 air. The land is situated in Village Kumher. Both the parties were joint tenants of the disputed land. Both the parties were in possession of their respective portion of the land, but during the settlement, the land, which was in possession of the plaintiff, was entered in the name of defendants and the land which was in possession of the defendants was entered in the name of the plaintiffs. Both the parties entered into a compromise and agreed that there respective lands which are in their possession may be entered into in their respective lands. The Revenue Appellate Authority passed a decree accordingly. The Revenue Board has considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties in detail, including the submission relating to Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The Revenue Board has observed that this is not a case of transfer of land from a person of SC/ST to a person belonging to General Category, but this is case of correction of entry wrongly made in the revenue record during settlement proceedings. In my view, the judgment and decree passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority as well as Revenue Board, both are correct. There is no factual or legal error in the said judgments. There is no merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. ashok/