1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the following orders :

(i) order dated 9th April, 2019, passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner;

(ii) order dated 01st February, 2016, passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur;

(iii) judgment and decree dated 12th June, 2015, passed by the Assistant Collector and Executive Magistrate, Jaipur City – I, Jaipur;

(iv) judgment and preliminary decree dated 02nd June, 2015, passed by the Assistant Collector and Executive Magistrate, Jaipur City – I, Jaipur;

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a suit for partition and permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiffrespondent - M/s Land Mark Executive Private Ltd. in the Court of ACM, Jaipur City - I, Jaipur.

3. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was arrayed as defendant No.3 in the suit and preliminary decree was passed on 02nd June, 2015 and the Court found defendant No.1 – Gopal S/o Laduram, defendant No.3 – Bhanwar Lal s/o Shrinarayan (petitioner in the writ petition) and defendant No.4 – Smt. Laxmi Devi w/o Shrinarayan had filed written statement, whereby they also agreed for partition of the property and further, defendant No.2 – Smt. Krishna Devi D/o Shrinarayan did not appear and exparte proceedings were drawn against her.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while passing the preliminary decree, the Court below passed an order of partition of property, total measuring 10.800 hectares and the Tehsidar Sanganer was directed to prepare the report as per the partition rules on the basis of metes and bounds and to consider possession of the property by the parties and as such, the Tehsildar Sanganer was directed to undertake necessary exercise.

5. Learned counsel submitted that while passing the preliminary decree, in the order sheet, it was recorded that report of the Tehsildar, after considering the objections, was to be placed before the Court on 15th June, 2015.

6. The petitioner has pleaded in the writ petition that without issuing any notice to the petitioner and other persons, the Tehsildar Sanganer prepared a report dated 11th June, 2015 and also mentioned about pendency of a suit tilted as Krishna Devi Vs. Bhanwar Lal before SDO, Jaipur – II since 09th August, 2004 and the same being transferred to ACM, Jaipur City – I, Jaipur where direction for maintaining status quo of possession and record was issued on 17th August, 2004.

7. The petitioner has pleaded in the writ petition that the Trial Court took up the matter on 11th June, 2015 for passing the decree according to the report of the Tehsildar and matter was fixed for 12th June, 2015 in the Revenue Lok Adalat/Camp Court.

8. The petitioner has pleaded in the writ petition that no-one was present to represent the petitioner on 11th June, 2015 and on 12th June, 2015, the petitioner was not present in the Revenue Lok Adalat and no notice was ever served to him of preponment of date or to appear before the Lok Adalat on 12th June, 2015.

9. The petitioner has pleaded in the writ petition that on 12th June, 2015, an order-sheet was drawn that the report of Tehsildar about objection of division of property has been received and the counsels were present on behalf of the parties and as such, as per objection on partition of property, as decided by Tehsildar, separate judgment and decree was passed.

10. The petitioner has pleaded in the writ petition that the Court below, vide order dated 12th June, 2015, passed the judgment and decree and certain Khasras were allotted to the plaintiffrespondent - M/s Land Mark Executive Private Ltd. and legal heirs of late Shrinarayan s/o Laduram and as such, in place of Shrinarayan, Smt. Krishna Devi D/o Shrinarayan, Bhanwar Lal s/o Shrinarayan (the petitioner in the writ petition) and Smt. Laxmi Devi W/o Shrinarayan, who were legal representatives of Shrinarayan, were allotted total five Khasras measuring 4.0320 hectare of land and further, Gopal s/o Ladu Ram was also held entitled for the land, total measuring 2.0160 hectare in five Khasras.

11. The petitioner has pleaded in the writ petition that the judgment had also put a note at the end, whereby it was mentioned that a suit was pending, which was transferred to ACM, Jaipur City- I, Jaipur and as such, vide order dated 17th August, 2004, interim order was continuing in a case filed by Krishna Devi against Bhanwar Lal.

12. The petitioner has pleaded in the writ petition that the petitioner, feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 12th June, 2015, filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority and the respondent No.3 - Krishna Devi also filed a separate appeal against the preliminary as well as final decree dated 02nd June, 2015 and 12th June, 2015 respectively.

13. The petitioner has pleaded in the writ petition that the Revenue Appellate Authority, vide order dated 01st February, 2016, dismissed both the appeals, filed by the petitioner and the respondent No.3 – Krishna Devi and maintained the judgment and decree dated 12th June, 2015.

14. The petitioner has pleaded in the writ petition that the petitioner, feeling aggrieved against the order dated 01st February, 201, passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, challenged the same before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue, by the impugned order dated 09th April, 2019, has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner by not finding the same to be maintainable.

15. The petitioner has pleaded in the writ petition that the Board of Revenue has further observed in its judgment dated 12th June, 2015 that the Trial Court has passed final decree in Revenue Lok Adalat in terms of the partition proposals received from the Tehsildar and as agreed by learned counsel for the parties, wherein consent for passing final decree in terms of the partition proposal submitted by the Tehsildar, was not signed by the petitioner but the same was signed by his counsel and since judicial proceedings have a great sanctity and there being no allegation of any kind against the counsel for the petitioner, no interference was required to be made.

16. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.NK Maloo, assisted by learned counsel Mr.Pratyush Sharma, has made following submissions :

(i) the impugned judgment and decree dated 12th June, 2015 is a nullity in the eyes of law, as the same having been passed in collusive manner.

(ii) the judgment and decree dated 12th June, 2015 was passed in absence of any notice to the petitioner for deciding the matter by preponing the date.

(iii) the judgment and decree passed in Lok Adalat does not bear signature of the petitioner and in absence of any signature put by the petitioner on the settlement, the decree passed by the Lok Adalat is a nullity.

(iv) the preponment of date from 15th to 11th June, 2015 and then passing order on 12th June, 2015 in absence of the petitioner is most unusual manner, as the suit was decided by preponing the date in the alleged presence of counsel for the parties.

(v) the final decree dated 12th June, 2015 was passed on the basis of report of Tehsilder dated 11th June, 2015 and the said report clearly mentioned about interim order with regard to maintaining status quo as to the site as well as record of the suit property and as such, no final decree could have been passed in view of the civil suit, pending between Smt. Krishna Devi and Bhanwarlal (the petitioner in the writ petition).

(vi) the objections were to be considered in view of the preliminary decree passed by the Court, the Tehsildar, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, prepared report on his own and such report, in absence of necessary party and without considering objection of the petitioner about actual physical possession of the land, no final decree could have been passed.

(vii) the Court below failed to consider that there was a clear violation of principles of natural justice and Rules 18 to 21 of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Board of Revenue) Rules, 1955 (for short “the Rules of 1955”) and a fraud was played upon the petitioner and others by the respondents and as such, no decree could have been passed.

(viii) the procedure, as provided in the National Legal Service Authority (Lok Adalat) Regulations, 2009 (for short “Regulations of 2009”) has been flagrantly violated as Lok Adalat, while passing the award is required to ask the parties to sign the settlement or award before the Members of Lok Adalat by putting their signatures.

(ix) the fraud played by the plaintiff and other respondents was apparent before the Court below and both the Appellate Courts failed to exercise their jurisdiction to set aside the impugned orders, which were obtained by fraud.

(x) the respondent – Smt. Krishna Devi herself had filed appeal against preliminary and final decree before the Revenue Appellate Authority and after dismissal of appeal, the said respondent cannot be allowed to seek compliance of preliminary as well as final decree and as such, the judgment passed by the Appellate Forums are binding on her.

17. Leaned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on following judgments :

(1) State of Punjab & Anr. Vs. Jalour Singh & Ors. [(2008) 2 SCC 660

(2) Sewa Singh Vs. The Daily Lok Adalat (Bench No.1), Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh & Ors. [CWP No.7344-2011 (O & M), decided on 14th October, 2015] [MANU/SC/0772/2022]

18. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.RK Agrawal, assisted by learned counsel Mr.Adhiraj Modi, appearing for the respondent No.3 – Smt. Krishna Devi, has made following submissions :

(i) there is no dispute that the suit land is to be divided between the plaintiff-respondent - M/s Land Mark Executive Private Ltd. having 2/5th share, the respondent No.2-Gopal having 1/5th share and Smt. Krishna, Bhanwarlal and Smt. Laxmi Devi having 2/5th share.

(ii) undisputedly, the petitioner-defendant had filed written statement in the suit, where he admitted claim of the plaintiff to have division of the property/land in the same ratio, as was pleaded in the suit.

(iii) the petitioner does not have any locus to challenge the compromise/settlement, which has been arrived at between the parties on 12th June, 2015 and the petitioner, if has any grievance against such compromise/settlement, only proper Forum was to approach the same Court, which had passed the order and as such, no appeal could have been filed by the petitioner and the present writ petition is also not maintainable.

(iv) the lawyer, who appears on behalf of a party/litigant, has full competence to sign on behalf of the party and if the counsel for the petitioner was present for arriving at compromise/settlement on behalf of the petitioner, no fault can be found in such a procedure and there is no requirement of giving separate notice to the party-petitioner.

19. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 – Smt. Krishna Devi has placed reliance on following judgments :

(i) Pushpa Devi Bhagat (Dead) through L.R. Sadhna Rai (Smt.) Vs. Rajinder Singh & Ors. [(2006) 5 SCC 566

(ii) R.Rajanna Vs. S.R. Venkataswamy & Ors. [AIR 2015 SC 706 ]

(iii) Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan & Anr. Vs. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan & Ors. [Civil Appeal NO(S).6406- 6407/2010], decided on 13th June, 2022.

20. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. MM Ranjan, assisted by learned counsel Mr.Rohan Agrawal, appearing for the respondent No.1 - M/s Land Mark Executive Private Ltd., submitted that the Courts below have rightly passed the order and preliminary decree was also passed on the basis of admission of all the parties, including the petitioner and no objection was raised by any of the parties and as such, the petitioner cannot be permitted to assail the decree passed by the Courts below.

21. Learned counsel submitted that the order of preliminary decree was to the effect of considering the objection by Tehsildar and after considering the objections, the Tehsildar submitted the report and accordingly, the final decree was passed.

22. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent-plaintiff is a bona fide purchaser of the land in question and due to frivolous dispute, raised by the petitioner, the respondent cannot be made to suffer and the respondent has further developed the purchased piece of land and even houses have been constructed and only due to interim order, passed by this Court in the present writ petition, the respondent-plaintiff is suffering alone and as such, this Court may dismiss the writ petition.

23. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and scanned the matter carefully.

24. This Court, before dealing with the various submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties, deems it proper to narrate certain undisputed facts :

(a) the plaintiff-respondent - M/s Land Mark Executive Private Ltd. had filed a suit for partition and permanent injunction, wherein it prayed for division of property/land, claiming its 2/5th share and 2/5th share of the defendant No.2 – Smt. Krishna Devi, defendant No.3 – Bhanwarlal (the petitioner in the writ petition), defendant No.4 – Smt. Laxmi Devi and 1/5th share of defendant No.1 – Gopal of the total land.

(b) the defendant No.1 – Gopal filed his written statement admitting claim of the plaintiff-respondent and also prayed for grant of preliminary decree and to decide the suit finally by partition of land and by correcting the revenue record.

(c) the defendant Nos.3 & 4, i.e., the petitioner – Bhanwarlal and Smt. Laxmi Devi filed written statement admitting claim of the plaintiff and also prayed for partition of land and to pass preliminary decree and after partition, separate Khasras were to be opened and revenue record was to be amended accordingly.

(d) on 2nd June, 2015, the respondent-defendant – Smt. Krishna Devi did not appear in spite of service and ex-parte proceedings were drawn against her.

(e) on the same date, the Court, on the basis of admissions of the defendants in the suit, passed an order as well as preliminary decree of division of the property and sought report of the Tehsildar after inviting objections (Kurejat Report) and the case was posted on 15th June, 2015 for considering the report of the Tehsildar.

(f) the case was put up before ACM Jaipur City – I, Jaipur on 11th June, 2015 and lawyers were present on behalf of the plaintiff and respondents and the case was agreed to be posted in Revenue Lok Adalat on 12th June, 2015 for considering objections (Kurejat Report) of the Tehsildar and counsel for the parties agreed to get the final disposal on 12th June, 2015.

(g) the objections (Kurejat Report) dated 11th June, 2015 was filed by the Tehsildar, wherein he divided the total land measuring 10.800 hectare between plaintiff-defendant – Gopal and late Shrinarayan and on account of death of Shrinarayna, the defendants – Smt. Krishna Devi, Bhanwarlal (the petitioner in the writ petition) and Smt. Laxmi Devi w/o Shrinarayan, were allotted certain piece of land. The said report specifically mentioned that a suit was pending in SDO Court, Jaipur – II and the same was transferred in the Court of ACM Jaipur City – I, Jaipur, where the stay order dated 17th August, 2004 was passed for maintaining status quo with regard to site and record of the subject land.

(h) on 12th June, 2015, the case was take up before the Revenue Lok Adalat at Camp Court Bhapura and counsel, on behalf of different parties, were present and the Court, after considering the objections (Kurejat Report) passed an order that as per the objections (Kurejat Report), received from the Tehsildar, the suit property was partitioned and separate judgment and decree was to be prepared.

(i) the judgment and decree dated 12th June, 2015 was passed solely on the basis of report of the Tehsildar and in the judgment, a note was appended with respect to pendency of the case in the suit, filed by Smt. Krishna Devi against Bhanwarlal (the present petitioner in the writ petition) and interim order passed on 17th August, 2004 in the said suit.

(j) the judgment and decree dated 12th June, 2015 was passed in absence of the petitioner and the petitioner had never put his signature on any compromise/settlement or given any consent to pass any decree.

(k) the petitioner filed appeal under Section 223 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 against the judgment and decree dated 12th June, 2015 before the Revenue Appellate Authority, wherein he specifically raised an objection that report of the Tehsildar was prepared in collusive manner and no notice was given to him and in his absence, report was filed on 11th June, 2015 and on the basis of the same report, division of land was done in arbitrary manner by giving land in favour of the plaintiff, which was abutting the main Ajmer road. The petitioner had also raised objection regarding pendency of a suit between him and Smt. Krishna Devi and in spite of pendency of the said suit, the final decree was passed.

(l) the respondent – Smt. Krishna Devi had filed an appeal against preliminary as well as final decree dated 12th June, 2015 and the same were allowed by the Revenue Appellate Authority vide order dated 15th July, 2015.

(m) the said order was reviewed by the Revenue Appellate Authority vide its order dated 29th October, 2015 and the order dated 15th July, 2015 was recalled.

(n) the appeal filed by Smt. Krishna Devi bearing Appeal No.545/2015/223 as well as appeal filed by the petitioner bearing Appeal No.336/2015/223 were decided by common order dated 1st February, 2016 by the Revenue Appellate Authority dismissing both appeals and judgment and decree dated 12th June, 2015 was upheld.

(o) the order dated 1st February, 2016, passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, was not put to challenge by the respondent – Smt. Krishna Devi.

(p) the suit filed by the respondent – Smt. Krishna Devi against the present petitioner – Bhanwarlal is still pending in the same Court, i.e., ACM Jaipur City – I, Jaipur and interim order dated 17th August, 2004 of maintaining status quo with regard to possession and record, is still continuing.

(q) on 12th June, 2015, the parties to the suit were not present and on the basis of consent, given by their counsel, final judgment and decree dated 12th June, 2015 was passed in Revenue Lok Adalat.

(r) the petitioner has filed a complaint in Bar Council of Rajasthan against his counsel Mr.Khurshid Ahmed alleging misconduct against him, as he acted in collusion with plaintiff.

(s) a criminal complaint has also been filed by the petitioner against his counsel in Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur for taking criminal action for alleged misconduct committed by him.

25. The issue, about maintainability of the present writ petition before High Court against consent decree or an award passed by Revenue Lok Adalat, raised by learned counsel for the respondents, needs to be decided first.

26. This Court finds that judgment and decree dated 12th June, 2015 was passed by ACM Jaipur City-I, Jaipur in Revenue Lok Adalat and hearing of the suit has not taken place in regular court.

27. This Court, from the facts of this case, finds that no counsel has argued before this Court that Revenue Lok Adalat did not have jurisdiction to decide the suit in Lok Adalat.

28. The issue with regard to the remedy available to a party to challenge the order of Lok Adalat by way of approaching under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been considered by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Anr. Vs. Jalour Singh & Ors. (supra), whereby it is held that where an award is made by Lok Adalat in terms of a settlement arrived at between the parties, the same becomes final and binding on the parties to the settlement and become executable as if it is a decree of a civil court and if any party wants to challenge such an award based on settlement, it can be done only by filing a writ petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Para No.12 of the said judgment is quoted hereunder for ready reference :

“12. It is true that where an award is made by Lok Adalat in terms of a settlement arrived at between the parties, (which is duly signed by parties and annexed to the award of the Lok Adalat), it becomes final and binding on the parties to the settlement and becomes executable as if it is a decree of a civil court, and no appeal lies against it to any court. If any party wants to challenge such an award based on settlement, it can be done only by filing a petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution, that too on very limited grounds. But where no compromise or settlement is signed by the parties and the order of the Lok Adalat does not refer to any settlement, but directs the respondent to either make payment if it agrees to the order, or approach the High Court for disposal of appeal on merits, if it does not agree, is not an award of the Lok Adalat. The question of challenging such an order in a petition under Artcile 227 does not arise. As already noticed, in such a situation, the High Court ought to have heard and disposed of the appeal on merits.”

29. The Apex Court, in the recent case of Estate Officer Vs. Colonel H. V. Mankotia (Retired) [2021 SCC OnLine SC 898] as well as in the case of Bhargavi Construction & Ors. Vs. Kothakapu Muthyam & Ors. [(2018) 13 SCC 480] has reiterated the principle that Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to decide on merits, if the compromise is not arrived at between the parties.

30. This Court, accordingly, finds that the present writ petition has rightly been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment and decree passed in Revenue Lok Adalat.

31. This Court also considered earlier objection of maintainability, as raised by learned counsel for the respondents and accordingly, on 20th April, 2022, this Court has held that as per law laid down by the Apex Court, the petitioner has a right to raise all his grievance challenging the order of Lok Adalat by way of writ petition and as such, this Court had decided to examine the matter on merits. Accordingly, the objection, raised by learned counsel for the respondents about maintainability of the writ petition is rejected and the petitioner has rightly approached this Court.

32. The issue before this Court is now with regard to validity of the judgment and decree passed by the Court below in Revenue Lok Adalat.

33. This Court finds that the suit filed for partition and permanent injunction was decided in terms of admissions made by different defendants in the suit, wherein they admitted partition of the property and to allot earmarked share to each co-sharer and to prepare the revenue record accordingly. The petitioner and other defendants rightly agreed for partition of the land as per their written statement. The preliminary decree, passed by the Court below, required objections through the Tehsildar and the Tehsildar prepared the report (Kurejat Report) and did not give any notice to the petitioner and in absence of proper parties, the Tehsildar prepared report (Kurejat Report) and submitted the same before the next date fixed in the Court below.

34. This Court finds that Revenue Lok Adalat, which passed the order, did not have presence of the parties and in their absence, judgment and decree was passed.

35. This Court finds that Regulations of 2009 provides procedure in Lok Adalat and further, how an award is to be drawn. Relevant Regulation No.17 of the Regulations of 2009 is quoted hereunder for ready reference :

“17. Award. – (1) Drawing up of the award is merely an administrative act by incorporating the terms of settlement or compromise agreed by parties under the guidance and assistance from Lok Adalat.

(2) When both parties sign or affix their thumb impression and the members of the Lok Adalat countersign it, it becomes an award. (see a specimen at Appendix-I) Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be categorical and lucid and shall be written in regional language used in the local courts or in English. It shall also contain particulars of the case viz., case number, name of court and names of parties, date of receipt, register number assigned to the case in the permanent Register (maintained as provided under Regulation–20) and date of settlement. Wherever the parties are represented by counsel, they should also be required to sign the settlement or award before the members of the Lok Adalat affix their signature.

(3) In cases referred to Lok Adalat from a court, it shall be mentioned in the award that the plaintiff or petitioner is entitled to refund of the court fees remitted.

(4) Where the parties are not accompanied or represented by counsel, the members of the Lok Adalat shall also verify the identity of parties, before recording the settlement.

(5) Member of the Lok Adalat shall ensure that the parties affix their signatures only after fully understanding the terms of settlement arrived at and recorded. The members of the Lok Adalat shall also satisfy themselves about the following before affixing their signatures:

(a) that the terms of settlement are not unreasonable or illegal or one-sided; and

(b) that the parties have entered into the settlement voluntarily and not on account of any threat, coercion or undue influence.

(6) Members of the Lok Adalat should affix their signatures only in settlement reached before them and should avoid affixing signatures to settlement reached by the parties outside the Lok Adalat with the assistance of some third parties, to ensure that the Lok Adalats are not used by unscrupulous parties to commit fraud, forgery, etc.

(7) Lok Adalat shall not grant any bail or a divorce by mutual consent.

(8) The original award shall form part of the judicial records (in pre-litigation matter, the original award may be kept with the Legal Services Authority or committee, concerned) and a copy of the award shall be given to each of the parties duly certifying them to be true by the officer designated by the MemberSecretary or Secretary of the High Court Legal Services Committee or District Legal Services Authority or, as the case may be, the Chairman of Taluk Legal Services Committees free of cost and the official seal of the Authority concerned or Committee shall be affixed on all awards.”

36. A bare perusal of Regulation 17 of the Regulations of 2009 clearly reveals that terms of settlement or compromise agreed by the parties is drawn as award and both the parties affix their thumb impression and the members of the Lok Adalat countersign it and then it becomes an award. The said regulation further provides that whenever parties are represented by counsel, they should also be required to sign the settlement and award before the Members of Lok Adalat affix their signature. The said Regulation provides that if parties are not accompanied or represented by counsel, the members of the Lok Adalat shall also verify the identity of parties, before recording the settlement.

37. This Court finds that as per the procedure given in the Regulations of 2009, if any terms of settlement were to be arrived at before Lok Adalat, the presence of parties and their signatures were necessary before any order could have been passed on the basis of compromise as alleged to have taken place between the parties.

38. The Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Anr. Vs. Jalour Singh & Ors. (supra) has also held that Lok Adalats have no adjudicatory or judicial functions and making of an award is an administrative act of incorporating the terms of settlement or compromise agreed by the parties in the presence of the Lok Adalat, in the form of an executable order under the signature and seal of the Lok Adalat. The signature of the parties on the settlement has also been held to be necessary as per law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case.

39. The judgment in the case of Sewa Singh (supra), relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, also reiterates the position that no order can be passed by the Lok Adalat, if there is no compromise or settlement between the parties and such compromise or settlement has to be arrived at by taking consent of the parties to the litigation and the Lok Adalat has to verify about the genuineness of the consent so given by the parties.

40. The Court, in the case of Sewa Singh (supra), has further held that an advocate cannot make any compromise or concession without the proper and specific instructions of his/her client and as such, the parties are required to appear before the Court and get their statements recorded and thereafter, award should be passed.

41. This Court finds that requirement of law has not been complied with in the present case, as admittedly, the petitioner was not present in the Court and even he was not afforded any opportunity of raising objection at the time of preparing the report by the Tehsildar about partition of the property and to object as which share was to be given to each party to the litigation.

42. The submission of learned counsel for the respondent No.3 – Smt. Krishna Devi that only remedy available to the petitioner was to raise his grievance about alleged compromise before the Court concerned and as such, reliance is placed by him on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Pushpa Devi Bhagat (Dead) through L.R. Sadhna Rai (Smt.) (supra), this Court finds that the principle, which has been laid down by the Apex Court in the said judgment is in respect of the compromise, if arrived at by any fraud or collusion or any other means, the same is required to be challenged before the Civil Court, where such compromise has been acted upon.

43. This Court is afraid to accept the submission of learned counsel for the respondent No.3 as the said principle of law will not be applicable in respect of the orders, which are passed in the Lok Adalat.

44. The submission of learned counsel for the respondents that there is an admission about share of each party in the dispute and the petitioner having filed written statement admitting claim of the plaintiff had no right to challenge, suffice it to say by this Court that actual partition or having particular share of the property, was a dispute and it was in respect of assignment of a particular share or division of the property by considering the objections by all the parties in respect of their share and possession and which part of land, they were entitled to by metes and bounds.

45. Once the petitioner had an objection about the report being prepared by the Tehsildar in arbitrary and collusive manner by giving certain important piece of land in share of plaintiff, abutting the main road then in such background, the admission of defendant-petitioner in his written statement or while preparing the preliminary decree will not deprive, such person to raise objection about proper division and partition of the property at the time of passing final judgment and decree.

46. The submission of learned counsel for the respondent that the counsel, who appeared on behalf of the petitioner, had full competence to sign the compromise/settlement and no fault can be found to such procedure, this Court finds that if a settlement was to be arrived at, the presence of parties was necessary before the Lok Adalat and in their absence, no compromise/settlement could have been arrived at.

47. This Court further finds that the petitioner also initiated action against his lawyer, who is said to have acted beyond his powers to give concession on his behalf and as such, the matter is also said to be reported in Bar Council of Rajasthan as well as Police Authorities.

48. This Court finds that the Revenue Appellate Authority and Board of Revenue also failed to take into account all factual and legal aspects and they have upheld the judgment and decree, passed by the Court below. The Board of Revenue apart from finding appeal not maintainable, filed against the order of the Lok Adalat, has also given findings on merits of the matter and as such, the Revenue Appellate Authority as well as Board of Revenue, have not correctly appreciated the controversy.

49. This Court is also constrained to observe that the Revenue Authorities, while deciding the cases, also ignored the important aspects of the matter and the present case is a glaring example of such wrong exercise. The Court below – ACM, Jaipur City – I, Jaipur, which has passed the final judgment and decree, was made aware of a case, which is pending between the same parties, i.e., Smt. Krishna Devi and Bhanwarlal (the petitioner in the writ petition), in which, interim order of maintaining status quo with regard to possession and revenue record is continuing and yet final judgment and decree has been passed.

50. The manner, in which, the case was taken up by preponing the date and without issuing notice to the parties for appearing in the Lok Adalat, the judgment and decree was passed, the Presiding Officer, who passed such judgment and decree, ought to have been vigilant enough to see that the dispute, which was not resolved between the parties, i.e., the respondent and the petitioner, not culminating into final determination of their rights yet he passed the final judgment and decree dated 12th June, 2015.

51. This Court finds that the final judgment and decree dated 12th June, 2015 is required to be set aside.

52. Accordingly, the final judgment and decree dated 12th June, 2015 is set aside. The order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 9th April, 2019 and the order dated 01st February, 2016, passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur are also set aside.

53. This Court upholds the preliminary judgment and decree dated 2nd June, 2015, as the same was passed on the basis of written statement, filed by the defendant-petitioner and other defendants and the Court can proceed further in accordance with law.

54. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed to that extent.