JUDGMENT 1. - The dispute in this appeal arising from the order of the learned Single Judge dated 15.4.2006 in S.B.C.W.P. No. 2937/2001 dismissing the writ petition of the appellants relates to the estate of One Kheta Ram. 2. The dispute arose after the lands came to be recorded in the name of Dilsukh Ram, represented by the appellants claiming to be the adopted son of Kheta Ram. The daughters of Kheta Ram filed revenue suit before the Sub Divisional Officer challenging the mutation in favour of Dilsukh Ram. They denied that their father had executed deed of adoption which was the foundation of claim of Dilsukh Ram, and asserted that the lands exclusively belong to them. The Sub Divisional Officer by his order dated 3.4.1995 directed that the lands be recorded in favour of the five daughters and Dilsukh Ram to the extent of 1 /6th each. Dilsukh Ram preferred appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sikar who by order dated 6.6.1996 set aside the order of Sub Divisional Officer. The result of the appellate order was that the mutation in favour of Dilsukh Ram stood revived. The daughters preferred revision before the Board of Revenue. During pendency of the revision, two of the daughters namely, Mst. Jatli and Mst. Mathri allegedly entered into compromise with Dilsukh Ram and filed affidavits to that effect. The Board of Revenue took the view that it is open to the daughters to relinquish their rights in favour of Dilsukh Ram, but they cannot do so by way of affidavit, and in the facts and circumstances, set aside the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority. 3. It is relevant to mention here that no compromise petition was filed nor, admittedly, any document of relinquishment or release has been executed by Mst. Jatli or Mst. Mathri. 4. Counsel submitted that release of land can be made by way of affidavit, and as Mst. Jatli and Mst. Mathri had affirmed affidavits to that effect, the Board of Revenue should have accepted the same and decided the appeal accordingly. In other words, the shares of Mst. Jatli and Mst. Mathri should have been allowed to Dilsukh Ram. We are of the view that right or interest can be relinquished or surrendered by a person only under a valid document of relinquishment, surrender and release. In other words, the shares of Mst. Jatli and Mst. Mathri should have been allowed to Dilsukh Ram. We are of the view that right or interest can be relinquished or surrendered by a person only under a valid document of relinquishment, surrender and release. The affidavit may be affirmed in support of the factum of relinquishment, surrender and release, as the case may be, but it cannot be treated as document of relinquishment or release, as such. As a matter of fact, no compromise petition had been filed in this case before the Board. In these premises, we do not think that Board of Revenue committed any error in refusing to uphold the claim of the appellant on the basis of the alleged compromise. 5. We thus, find no error in the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******