Hira Chand vs State And Ors

A joint application has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India vide I.A. No.5782/13 before this Court on 20.11.2013, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner and the respondent No.2 Samarathmal S/o Sita Ram Mali entered into a compromise with the following terms:-

"i. That the respondent No.2 (Samarthmal S/o Sitaram Mali) accepts and admits the issuance of aforesaid Patta of year 1960 in favour of Late Panna Rawal and its further sale in favour of petitioner's father Late Javer Chand jain, in the year 1960 itself.

ii. That the respondent No.2 (Samarthmal S/o Sitaram Mali) does not claim his any right over the land in dispute, and also does not claim any right pursuant to the alleged issuance of Patta in favour of Mali Nawa S/o Kasal, as averred by him in Revision Petition No.30/1992 Champa Bai & Anr. Vs. Maganlal & Ors. Filed by him (as petitioner No.20 and his Late maternal grand-mother Champa Bai W/o Nawa Mali (as petitioner No.1). He (respondent No.2) hereby relinquishes all his rights pertaining to the subject matter of this writ petition.

iii. That the respondent No.2 (Samarthmal S/o Sitaram Mali) has received the consideration amount from petitioner (Hira Chand S/o Javer Chand) in lieu of aforesaid entire relinquishment.

iv. That the respondent No.2 (Samarthmal S/o Sitaram Mali) and his family members, in future also, shall never claim any right and/or consideration from the petitioner and all his brother (performa respondents No. 6 to 9), and all their family members also."

It has therefore been prayed that compromise be taken on record and the writ petition be disposed of accordingly and the impugned order dated 06.10.1995 passed by the respondent No.1 be quashed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the aforesaid settlement on the compromise placed before this Court, which was duly attested and signed by both the parties and was identified by their respective counsels, further development has taken place that the respondent No.2 has sold the property in question which is in petitioner's possession to one Savita Devi in the year 2014. Savita Devi moved an application before this Court under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC which was dismissed. It is from the said fact that the petitioner came to know that the respondents have flouted the compromise/settlement which was taken on record.

Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had purchased the property by sale deed in the year 1964 from one Pannarawal who was issued patta of the property on 16.09.1960 after the sale deed executed on 31.01.1964. The petitioner is continuing in possession and by the impugned order dated 06.10.1995 the Additional Collector, Sirohi has canceled the original patta exercising power under Section 27-A of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1961 and Rule 2 of the Panchayati Raj Rules, 1961. Although, he could not have exercised such a power after a period of 30 years from the date of issuance of patta. No reasons have come forward for entertaining such a revision petition after 30 years at the instance of respondent No.2

Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 - Samarathmal, Mr. Puneet Parihar on behalf of Mr. Pradeep Shah, Advocate submits that if the petitioner do not accept compromise, then the respondent are ready to argue the matter on merits.

This Court is of the view that once the compromise has been arrived at and placed before this Court after being duly attested by the parties, the same binds both the parties and the respondent No.2 would have no further concern with the property in terms of the compromise arrived at. It is also noticed that respondent No.2 has received consideration amount in view of his entire relinquishment.

If thereafter, the respondent has entered into any agreement or sale of the property, the same would have to be treated as void-ab-intio as the respondent's right if any stood relinquished after having submitted the compromise before this Court on 20.11.2013. This Court has also recognized that the subsequent purchaser Savita Devi also has no right in her favour after her application was rejected.

This Court is also of the view that respondent No.1 could not have exercised the power under provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act and the Rules of 1961 after a period of 30 years and the application for revision itself was suffered from delay and laches and could not have been entertained. The order dated 06.10.1995, therefore, is held to be bad in law and is accordingly quashed and set aside.

The land in question, namely at Village Sirodi, District Sirohi shall remain in exclusive and ownership of the petitioner and no one shall except the petitioner or legal heirs of his assignee would have any right on the said peace of land for which patta was issued on 16.09.1960 and purchased by the petitioner by the sale deed dated 31.01.1964.

If any interference by any other party is sought to be made, petitioner would be free to initiate proceedings in civil as well as in criminal law as against such person including respondent No.2 or any of his assignee.

In view of the said observations, the writ petition is allowed.