Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned agricultural land comprising Khata No. 472 with Araji Nos. 1422 and 1431 in Village Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh. Late Smt. Narbada Bai, daughter of Heeralal, claimed inheritance rights in the ancestral property and filed Revenue Suit No.102/2019 under Sections 53, 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, seeking establishment of rights, partition and permanent injunction. During pendency, she passed away on 22.11.2023, and her son Prahalad was substituted as legal representative. After substitution, an application for withdrawal of the revenue suit was filed purportedly on his behalf and was allowed by the Assistant Collector, Nimbahera on 18.12.2023. The petitioner alleged that his signatures were obtained under false pretences and that no inquiry was conducted into the voluntariness of the withdrawal. Separate revenue suit No.128/2010 concerning the same land had been decided on 18.10.2016, and subsequent appeals led to consolidation and remand by the Revenue Appellate Authority on 20.12.2023, confirmed by the Board of Revenue on 17.03.2025. A compromise decree was passed on 28.08.2025 in Revenue Suit No.128/2010 without the petitioner being a signatory. The petitioner challenged the withdrawal order before the Revenue Appellate Authority, which upheld it on 17.07.2025; the Board of Revenue affirmed on 24.02.2026; and the learned Single Bench of the High Court upheld the orders on 06.07.2026 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5308/2026. Hence the present special appeal. The appellant argued that the withdrawal was not voluntary, no statement was recorded, and the revenue authorities failed to consider fraud. Respondents defended the withdrawal as voluntary and signed, citing Kartar Singh v. B.O.R. & Ors. (2009 Supreme (Raj) 1037). The High Court after examining the record found that the petitioner had not contested his signatures or the decree after substitution, and there was no evidence of fraud, coercion or procedural illegality. It also noted that the petitioner had not challenged the order in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.20763/2025, which was dismissed because the petitioner himself entered into a compromise, indicating awareness. Applying the Supreme Court's reasoning in Kartar Singh, the court held that a consciously moved application for withdrawal signed by the plaintiff cannot be later challenged as afterthought. Consequently, the court found no jurisdictional error, perversity or violation of natural justice to warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. The appeal was dismissed, stay applications disposed of, and no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Revenue Law - Withdrawal of Suit - Voluntary Withdrawal - Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, Sections 53, 88, 188 - The revenue courts allowed withdrawal of Revenue Suit No.102/2019 after substitution of legal representative. The court found that the petitioner did not contest signatures or decree and no evidence of fraud, coercion, or procedural illegality was shown; applying the principle from Kartar Singh v. Board of Revenue that an application for withdrawal consciously moved and signed by the plaintiff cannot be impugned later as afterthought. Held that the withdrawal order was valid and no interference warranted (Paras 17-19).
B) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review under Article 227 - Supervisory Jurisdiction - Constitution of India, Article 227 - The High Court considered whether the concurrent findings of revenue authorities and Single Bench suffered from jurisdictional error, perversity, or violation of natural justice. The court held that disputed facts had been examined and rejected, and the petitioner had not challenged earlier compromise order in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.20763/2025, indicating awareness; thus no grounds to invoke Article 227 to set aside the orders. Held that the appeal was devoid of merit and dismissed (Paras 19-20).
C) Civil Procedure - Estoppel and Compromise - Effect of Prior Compromise Decree - Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, Sections 53, 88, 188; General Principles of Estoppel - The petitioner argued that signatures on withdrawal application were obtained under false pretences, but the court noted that the petitioner had earlier entered into a compromise and failed to challenge the order in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.20763/2025, which stood dismissed, indicating conscious participation. The court held that principles of estoppel applied and the petitioner could not now challenge the withdrawal (Para 18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the withdrawal of Revenue Suit No.102/2019 was voluntary and valid; whether the revenue authorities erred in accepting withdrawal without recording statement; whether the concurrent orders suffer from jurisdictional error or violation of natural justice warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit. The stay applications and all pending applications were disposed of. No order as to costs. The court upheld the orders allowing withdrawal of Revenue Suit No.102/2019 and the compromise decree dated 28.08.2025, finding no jurisdictional error, perversity, or violation of natural justice.
Law Points
- Withdrawal of revenue suit valid if voluntary and signed
- no evidence of fraud or coercion
- concurrent findings of revenue authorities not to be interfered under Article 227 absent jurisdictional error
- prior compromise and failure to challenge earlier writ order bar later challenge
- principles of natural justice not violated where inquiry conducted and voluntariness accepted.
Case Details
2026 LawText (RAJ) (08) 5
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 854/2026; CNR: RJHC010727912026; URN: SAW / 1686U / 2026
Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati, Mr. Justice Praveer Bhatnagar
Ms. Aditi Moad, Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Mr. Surendra Thanvi, Ms. Twinkle Purohit, Mr. Abhishek Mehta, Mr. Abhinav Jain, Mr. Devi Singh, Mr. Akshay K. Surana
Lrs Of Narbada Bai, (Deceased) D/o Heeralal; Prahalad S/o Radheshyamji Suthar, Through Power Of Attorney Holder Tabir Ahmed
State Of Rajasthan through Collector Nimbahera; Board Of Revenue, Ajmer; Revenue Appellate Authority, Chittorgarh; Sub Divisional Officer / Assistant Collector, Nimbahera; Baluram S/o Heeralal; Smt. Indra W/o Sanjayji; Siddharth S/o Gyanchand Palecha; Smt. Pushpa Devi W/o Gyanchand Palecha; Smt. Anita Devi W/o Rajendra Singh Palecha; Smt Mayuri W/o Harish Kumar; Kishore Kumar S/o Bherulal; Shyam Sundar S/o Ghumanmal; Murlidhar S/o Ghumanmal; Smt. Snehlata W/o Anil Kumar; Divya W/o Viahal Kabra; Kaushalya W/o Govardhanlal; Vijay Laxmi W/o Deepak
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Special appeal writ against the order of the learned Single Bench upholding the revenue authorities' orders allowing withdrawal of Revenue Suit No.102/2019 and dismissing subsequent challenges.
Remedy Sought
The appellant sought to set aside the orders of the revenue authorities and the Single Bench, thereby restoring Revenue Suit No.102/2019 for adjudication of his inheritance, partition, and injunction claims.
Filing Reason
The appellant alleged that the withdrawal application was filed without his voluntary consent; signatures were obtained under false pretences after the death of his mother; no inquiry was conducted into voluntariness; and a compromise decree in Revenue Suit No.128/2010 prejudiced his rights.
Previous Decisions
Assistant Collector, Nimbahera allowed withdrawal of Revenue Suit No.102/2019 on 18.12.2023; Revenue Appellate Authority, Chittorgarh upheld the withdrawal on 17.07.2025; Board of Revenue, Ajmer affirmed the appellate order on 24.02.2026; learned Single Bench of High Court upheld these orders on 06.07.2026 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5308/2026. Additionally, Revenue Suit No.128/2010 was decided on 18.10.2016; Revenue Appellate Authority consolidated and remanded both suits on 20.12.2023; Board of Revenue dismissed second appeal against remand on 17.03.2025; compromise decree passed on 28.08.2025.
Issues
Whether the withdrawal of Revenue Suit No.102/2019 was voluntary and valid.
Whether the revenue authorities failed to inquire into the voluntariness and authenticity of the withdrawal application.
Whether the concurrent findings of the revenue authorities and the Single Bench suffer from jurisdictional error, perversity, or violation of natural justice warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Whether the principles of estoppel apply to bar the appellant from challenging the withdrawal after participating in a compromise.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant: The withdrawal was not voluntary; signatures were obtained under false pretences; no statement was recorded; the authorities did not verify voluntariness; the compromise decree in Revenue Suit No.128/2010 was not signed by the petitioner and prejudiced his rights; the orders below lacked convincing reasons; principles of estoppel do not apply when natural justice is violated. Cited Dhankha Devi Agrawal, State Bank of India, Jawan, Balbir Kaur, Lajja Ram Lalam.
Respondents: The petitioner voluntarily signed the settlement and withdrawal application; any misunderstanding arose afterwards; orders are well-reasoned and lawful; cited Kartar Singh v. B.O.R. & Ors.; petition not maintainable due to concurrent findings; petitioner's signatures are not disputed.
Ratio Decidendi
Where a legal representative after substitution does not contest signatures on a withdrawal application and there is no evidence of fraud, coercion, or procedural illegality, the withdrawal is presumed voluntary. An application for withdrawal consciously moved and signed by the plaintiff cannot be later challenged as an afterthought. Prior participation in a compromise and failure to challenge the resulting order bar subsequent challenges under principles of estoppel. Under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court should not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by revenue authorities unless there is jurisdictional error, perversity, or violation of natural justice.
Judgment Excerpts
Having examined the record and having taken into comprehension the surrounding circumstances, this Court is clearly of opinion that it were a case where the plaintiff consciously moved an application for withdrawal; and the Trial Court did not commit any error in dismissing the suit on such an application. The application was admittedly signed by the plaintiff and was attested by the Notary Public and was presented by the plaintiff's counsel. Any attempt on the part of the plaintiff to suggest some different state of affairs could only be dubbed as that of rather unfair afterthought.
This Court is of the considered opinion that neither the orders upholding withdrawal of Revenue Suit No.102/2019 nor the compromise decree dated 28.08.2025, suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity or violation of principles of natural justice warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Procedural History
Late Smt. Narbada Bai filed Revenue Suit No.102/2019 under Sections 53, 88, and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, seeking partition and injunction over ancestral agricultural land. She died on 22.11.2023, and her son Prahalad was substituted as legal representative. An application for withdrawal of the suit was filed and allowed by the Assistant Collector, Nimbahera on 18.12.2023. The appellant challenged this before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Chittorgarh, which upheld the withdrawal on 17.07.2025. The Board of Revenue, Ajmer, dismissed the second appeal on 24.02.2026. The appellant then filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5308/2026 before the High Court, which was dismissed on 06.07.2026. The present special appeal was preferred against that order. Separately, Revenue Suit No.128/2010 concerning the same land was decided on 18.10.2016; an appeal led to consolidation and remand by the Revenue Appellate Authority on 20.12.2023; the Board of Revenue confirmed the remand order on 17.03.2025; and a compromise decree was passed on 28.08.2025. The High Court heard arguments on 28.07.2026 and pronounced the full judgment on 17.08.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955: 53, 88, 188
- Constitution of India: 227
