Hon'ble MAHESHWARI, J.—Having taken into comprehension the facts and circumstances of the case with reference to the material on record and the submission as made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is clearly of the opinion that no case for interference is made out against the order dt. 23.4.2010 (Annex.17) passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer in Appeal (Decree) No. 1585/2010/TA/ Bhilwara. 2. Put in brief, the relevant background aspects of the matter are that the respondent No. 4 Smt. Geeta, sister of the present petitioners, Durga Lal & Jagdish Prasad, filed a suit under Sections 88, 89, 53, 92A, 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 while joining the present petitioners as defendants Nos. 1 & 2 and their mother (since deceased) as defendant No. 3 seeking declaration of her share and for division of holdings as comprised in Khasra No. 1171/2 admeasuring 3 bighas and 9 biswas, Khasra No. 1172 admeasuring 3 bighas and 6 biswas, and Khasra N. 1175 admeasuring 3 bighas and 16 biswas at village Uncha, Tehsil Jahajpur, District Bhilwara. Another piece of land comprised in Khasra No. 1173 admeasuring 7 biswas was also referred, which had been recorded in the names of defendants Nos. 1 to 3 with 1/2 share each. The plaintiff Geeta Devi alleged that the land in question belonged to her late father and she was entitled to claim share therein with the present petitioners and their mother. The suit was put to contest by the present petitioners on various grounds including the plea that the plaintiff had already executed a release deed in their favour. It was also pointed out that the land comprised in Khasra No. 1175 had already been converted for non-agricultural purposes and the suit in that relation was not competent before the Revenue Court. It was also pointed out that the land comprised in Khasra No. 1175 had already been converted for non-agricultural purposes and the suit in that relation was not competent before the Revenue Court. The following issues were framed by the Trial Court:- ^^1- vk;k oknh;k vkjkth [kljk uEcj 1171@2 jdck 3 ch?kk 9 fcLok 1172 jdck 3 ch?kk 6 fcLok 1175 jdck 3 ch?kk 16 fcLok 1173 jdck 7 fcLok okds xzke Åapk dh 1@4 fgLls esa [kkrsnkj dk'rdkj ntZ djokus dh vf/kdkjh gSA ftEes-oknh;k 2- vk;k oknh;k mDr vkjkth;kr ds eqrkfcd fgLlk caVokM+k djokus dh vf/kdkjh gSA rFkk mlh vuq:i jktLo jsdkMZ esa vey djokus dh vf/kdkjh gSA ftEes-oknh;k 3- vk;k oknh;k ds Lo;a ds fgLls esa vk;h vkjkth;kr esa 'kkfUriwoZd mi;ksx esa ck/k uk Mkyus gsrq izfroknhx.k dks ikcUn djokus dh vf/kdkjh gS rFkk cxSj caVokM+k ds foØ; uk djus gsrq izfroknhx.k dks ikcUn djokus ds vf/kdkjh gSaA -oknh;k 4- vk;k vkjkth uEcj 1175 d`f"k Hkwfe uk gksus ds dkj.k bl U;k;ky; dks lquus dk vf/kdkj ugha gSA -izfroknhx.k 5- vk;k oknh;k us izfroknhx.k ds gd esa Release dj fn;k FkkA-izfroknhx.k 6- vU; nknjlh** 3. The learned Trial Court, after taking the evidence and hearing the parties, proceeded to decree the suit with the finding that the plaintiff was entitled to 1/3 share in khasra No. 1171/2 and 1172. The decree so passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jahajpur on 14.3.2007 (Annex. 4) was, however, set aside by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bhilwara while accepting the appeal preferred by the petitioners on 26.7.2007 (Annex. 5). The matter was, thereafter, taken in second appeal before the Board of Revenue. It appears that during the pendency of the appeal in the Board of Revenue, the plaintiff Smt. Geeta allegedly alienated her interest in favour of the present respondents Nos. 5 & 6, Ram Singh Ranawat and Surendra Tak, who joined the litigation as appellants before the Board. It appears further that during the pendency of appeal, the parties entered into a compromise and such deed of compromise (Annex. 8) was presented before the Board and was duly verified. 4. It appears yet further that at the later stage, the petitioners came out with objections and suggested that they were not satisfied with the compromise, which was allegedly entered into rather under coercion and the amount payable thereunder was not paid to them. 8) was presented before the Board and was duly verified. 4. It appears yet further that at the later stage, the petitioners came out with objections and suggested that they were not satisfied with the compromise, which was allegedly entered into rather under coercion and the amount payable thereunder was not paid to them. However, it is also an admitted position that the petitioner No. 2 thereafter made an application seeking to affirm the compromise. Be that as it may, and irrespective of the vacillating stand of the petitioners, the Board of Revenue took up the matter for consideration in the said pending appeal bearing number 7000/07/TA/Bhilwara; and it is borne out from the contents of the order dated 18.12.2008 (Annex. 11) as passed by the Board of Revenue in the said appeal that at the time of hearing, it was an admitted stand of all the parties that the matter had been compromised and a request was made that the matter be decreed in terms of the compromise. However, the Board of Revenue despite having verified the compromise and despite the parties standing by the same, chose not to pass the final order in the matter itself and thought it proper to remand the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer for passing appropriate decree in terms of the compromise. However, the Board of Revenue despite having verified the compromise and despite the parties standing by the same, chose not to pass the final order in the matter itself and thought it proper to remand the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer for passing appropriate decree in terms of the compromise. For ready reference, the order passed by the Board of Revenue on 18.12.2008 is reproduced as under:- ^^;g vihy vUrxZr /kkjk 224 jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e] 1955 ¼la{ksi esa vf/kfu;e½ ds rgr Hkw izcU/k vf/kdkjh ,oa insu jktLo vihy vf/kdkjh] HkhyokM+k }kjk vihy la- 107@2007 esa ikfjr fd;s x;s fu.kZ; ,oa fMØh fnuakd 26-7-2007 ds fo:) bl U;k;ky; esa izLrqr dh xbZ gSA 2- la{ksi esa rF; bl izdkj gSa fd vihyk.V@oknh;k us mi[k.M vf/kdkjh] tgktiqjk ds U;k;ky; esa oknxzLr Hkwfe ckcr ,d okn vUrxZr /kkjk 88] 89] 53 o 188 ^^vf/kfu;e** is'k fd;k tks fnukad 14-3-2007 dks fMØh gqvkA bl fu.kZ; ds fo:) jsLiks.MsUV~l us jktLo vihy vf/kdkjh ds ;gka vihy is'k dh tks fnukad 26-7-2007 dks Lohdkj gqbZA blls O;fFkr gksdj ;g f}rh; vihy bl U;k;ky; esa izLrqr dh xbZ gSA 3- vihy ij cgl esa mHk;i{k ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kdx.k us dFku fd;k fd i{kdkjku ds e/; vkil esa jkthukek gks x;k gS ,oa muds }kjk rLnhd'kqnk jkthukek Hkh is'k dj fn;k x;k gSA vr% jkthukesa ds vuqlkj vihy fMØh dh tkosA 4- gekjs jkthukesa dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA gekjh lqfopkfjr jk; ds vuqlkj jkthukesa dh izfr bl U;k;ky; esa j[krs gq, ewy jkthukesa ds vuqlkj izdj.k esa fu;ekuqlkj fu.kZ; fd;s tkus gsrq ekeyk fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks izfrizsf"kr fd;k tkuk U;k;laxr izrhr gksrk gSA 5- ifj.kker% ;g vihy vkaf'kd :i ls Lohdkj dh tkrh gS ,oa jktLo vihy vf/kdkjh] HkhyokM+k }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; ,oa fMØh fnukad 26-7-2007 rFkk mi[k.M vf/kdkjh] tgktiqj }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; ,oa fMØh fnukad 14-3-2007 fujLr fd;s tkrs gSaA izdj.k mi[k.M vf/kdkjh] tgktiqj dks rLnhd'kqnk eqy jkthukesa ds lkFk bl funsZ'k ds lkFk izfrizsf"kr fd;k tkrk gS fd os i{kdkjku }kjk vkil esa fd;s x;s jkthukesa ds vuqlkj izdj.k esa fu;ekuqlkj fu.kZ; ikfjr djus dh dk;Zokgh djsaA** 5. The petitioners yet again attempted re-opening of the matter before the Board of Revenue by moving an application (Annex. 12) for restoring the appeal to its number for hearing; and again, the submissions of the petitioners were that the defendants appellants has failed to honour all the terms of the compromise. The petitioners yet again attempted re-opening of the matter before the Board of Revenue by moving an application (Annex. 12) for restoring the appeal to its number for hearing; and again, the submissions of the petitioners were that the defendants appellants has failed to honour all the terms of the compromise. However, the application so moved by the petitioners was found untenable by the Board and was rejected by the order dated 18.5.2009 (Annexure 13) but with the observations that if the petitioners were desirous of taking any proceedings, that could adopt the same before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jahajpur with whom the matter was pending at the given stage. However, the application so moved by the petitioners was found untenable by the Board and was rejected by the order dated 18.5.2009 (Annexure 13) but with the observations that if the petitioners were desirous of taking any proceedings, that could adopt the same before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jahajpur with whom the matter was pending at the given stage. The order dated 18.5.2009 is also reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- ^^izkFkhZx.k@jsLiks.MsUV la[;k 1 ,oa 2 us ,d izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr /kkjk 151 tkCrk nhokuh vihy dks iqu% uEcj ij ysus gsrq is'k fd;kA izkFkhZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us crk;k fd i{kdkjksa ds e/; vkilh jkthukesa ds vk/kkj ij muokuh vihy fnukad 18-12-2008 dks fuLrkfjr dj nh xbZ FkhA mudk rdZ gS fd jkthukesa ds vuqlkj izkFkhZx.k dks pkj yk[k #i;s nsuk r; gqvk Fkk fdUrq izkFkhZx.k dks ;g jkf'k ugha nh xbZA nwljh vksj ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk fopkjk/khu vihy mi[k.M vf/kdkjh] tgktiqj dks bl funsZ'k ds lkFk izfrizsf"kr dh xbZ fd os jkthukesa ds vuqlkj fu;ekuqdwy fu.kZ; ikfjr djsaA D;ksafd foi{khx.k }kjk fu/kkZfjr jkf'k dk Hkqxrku ugha fd;k tk jgk gSA vr,oa mUgksaus vihy la[;k 7000@07 dks iqu% uEcj ij ysrs gq, xq.kkoxq.k ij fu.kZ; ikfjr djus dk vuqjks/k fd;kA geus izkFkhZx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dh cgl ij euu fd;k ,oa i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA nksuksa i{kksa ds e/; jkthukek gqvk Fkk] ftl ij nksuksa i{kksa ds gLrk{kj gS ,oa bl vk/kkj ij yfEcr vihy dk fuLrkj.k djrs gq, izdj.k iqu% mi[k.M vf/kdkjh] tgktiqj dks bl funsZ'k ds lkFk fHktok;k x;k Fkk fd os i{kdkjksa }kjk vkil esa fd;s x;s jkthukesa ds vuqlkj fu.kZ; ikfjr djus dh dk;Zokgh djsaA geus jkthukesa dk Hkh voyksdu fd;k ftlesa fdlh izdkj dh jkf'k ds ysu-nsu ckcr mYys[k ugha gSA gekjh lqfopkfjr jk; esa tc nksuksa i{kksa }kjk jkthukek dj fy;k x;k ,oa rnqulkj fMØh ikfjr djus gsrq izdj.k mi[k.M vf/kdkjh] tgktiqj dks fnukad 18-12-2008 dks izfrizsf"kr dj fn;k gS] rks ,slh fLFkfr esa bl Lrj ij izkFkhZx.k ds izkFkZuki= ij dk;Zokgh lEHko ugha gSA bl lEcU/k esa izkFkhZx.k ;fn fdlh izdkj dh dk;Zokgh djokuk pkgrs gSa rks fu;ekuqlkj mi[k.M vf/kdkjh] tgktiqj ds ;gka izkFkZuk i= is'k dj ldrs gSa] ;fn ogka izdj.k vHkh yfEcr gksA mijksDr foospu ds vuqlkj izkFkhZx.k dk izkFkZuk i= [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA i=koyh QSly 'kqekj gksA vkns'k lquk;k x;kA** 6. The Sub-Divisional Officer, thereafter, took up the matter for consideration as per the directions of the Board of Revenue. The Sub-Divisional Officer, thereafter, took up the matter for consideration as per the directions of the Board of Revenue. The request made before the Sub-Divisional Officer for not proceeding in terms of the compromise was rejected with reference to the orders already passed by the Board of Revenue; and the Sub-Divisional Officer found it proper to decree the suit in terms of compromise. Accordingly, the following decree came to be passed on 6.7.2009:- ^^vr% oknhx.k dk okn i= Lohdkj fd;k tkdj fMØh cgd oknhx.k fo:) izfroknhx.k ds bl vk'k; dh tkjh dh tkrh gS fd izLrqr jkthukek ds vuqlkj xzke ÅWapk rg- tgktiqj esa fLFkr vofLFkr vkjkth ua0 117@2 jdck 3-09 ch?kk] 1172 jdck 3-06 ch?kk ckcr jkthukek gks pqdk gSA mDr jkthukesa ds vuqlkj vkjkth [k-ua- 117@2 jdck 3-09 ch?kk esa ls 1-07 ch?kk iwoZ dh rjQ dq, ds ikl okyh Hkwfe izfroknhx.k nqxkZyky o txnh'k iq= ekaxhyky ds fgLls esa jgsxhA rFkk 'ks"k if'pe dh rjQ 2-02 ch?kk Hkwfe oknhx.k la- 2 o 3 jkeflag iq= eksguflag o lqjsUnz dqekj iq= yknqjke ds fgLls esa jgsxhA blh izdkj vk-ua- 1172 jdck 3-06 ch?kk Hkwfe izfroknhx.k nqxkZyky o txnh'k iq= ekaxhyky ds fgLls esa jgsxhA mDrkuqlkj [kkrsnkj dk'rdkj ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gSA ipkZ fMØh eqfrZc fd;k tkosA i{kdkj [kpkZ viuk-viuk ogu djsaA** 7. The petitioners attempted to question the decree aforesaid in appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bhilwara but the said appeal was dismissed on 12.4.2010 (Annex. 10) with the Revenue Appellate Authority finding no case for interference. Yet another attempt of the petitioners of appeal before the Board of Revenue also failed for the Board dismissing the appeal by the impugned order dated 23.4.2010 (Annex. 17) Various contentions urged by the petitioners before the Board of Revenue were rejected essentially for the reason that the matter had been decided in terms of duty verified compromise and in compliance of the directions earlier issued by the Board. 8. Seeking to assail the order dated 23.4.2010, the learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the petitioners have rather being subjected to coercion and so also defrauded by the respondents Nos. 5 & 6 who somehow prevailed over the sister of the petitioners and entered into the litigation. 8. Seeking to assail the order dated 23.4.2010, the learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the petitioners have rather being subjected to coercion and so also defrauded by the respondents Nos. 5 & 6 who somehow prevailed over the sister of the petitioners and entered into the litigation. The learned counsel submitted that the respondent having failed to honour all the terms of the compromise, the same was not binding on the petitioners and could not have been enforced by the Courts. The learned counsel also submitted that by way of compromise, the petitioners have been put to serious prejudice where the valuable portion of the land of Khasra No. 1171/2 is sought to be taken over by the said alienees from the sister of the petitioner. The learned counsel also contended that when the matter had been remanded by the Board for due consideration to the Sub-Divisional Officer and every question was left open for consideration as clarified by the order dated 18.5.2009, the Sub-Divisional Officer had been in error in decreeing the suit on the basis of the so-called compromise and not considering the objections of the petitioners. According to the learned counsel, after remand, it was required of the Sub-Divisional Officer to decide every issue framed in the case and, for his having failed to do so, the impugned decree cannot be sustained. 9. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel and having taken into comprehension the material on record, this Court is clearly of opinion that the impugned judgment and decree call for no interference. 10. Irrespective of the propositions, whatever, the petitioners projected and attempted to project in relation to the compromise presented before the Board of Revenue, the fact of the matter remains that such deed of compromise was duly verified by the Board of Revenue and ultimately, the order dated 18.12.2008 was passed while recognising such deed of compromise and making it clear that the decree was required to be passed in terms thereof. The said order dated 18.12.2008 has, admittedly, attained finality as the same was not challenged any further. The petitioners, of course attempted at re-opening of the matter by moving an application before the Board of Revenue but the application was declined by the order dated 18.5.2009 that has also become final. The said order dated 18.12.2008 has, admittedly, attained finality as the same was not challenged any further. The petitioners, of course attempted at re-opening of the matter by moving an application before the Board of Revenue but the application was declined by the order dated 18.5.2009 that has also become final. In the given status of record, the Sub-Divisional Officer was practically having no other option except to pass the decree in terms of compromise; and cannot be faulted in having done so. 11. Having taken into comprehension all the facts and circumstances of the case and the material on record, this Court feels that discreet rather it would have been on the part of the Board of Revenue had it put an end to the litigation by passing a decree in terms of the compromise particularly when the same was presented before it and was duly verified and recognised. In other words, the remand of the matter by the Board to the Trial Court was wholly unnecessary and the Board itself should have passed the consequential decree after verification of the compromise. However, this aspect of the matter does not require further dilation for the reason that the remand order passed by the Board on 18.12.2008 has attained finality and has been acted upon. As a necessary consequence of the order dated 18.12.2008, neither any issue survived for determination by the Trial Court nor the Trial Court could have done anything except passing the decree in terms of the compromise. Even if the Board of Revenue observed cursorily in its order dated 18.5.2009 that the petitioners could file appropriate application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, in all fairness to the Sub-Divisional Officer it has to be considered that he was not having any room to enter into any question related with existence or otherwise of compromise which had already been verified before the Board of Revenue and re-affirmed by the parties at the time of passing of the order dated 18.12.2008. In the given fact situation and directions as contained in the order passed by the Board of Revenue, neither any issue survived nor there was any occasion for the Sub-Divisional Officer to return any finding on the issues framed in the case. 12. In the given fact situation and directions as contained in the order passed by the Board of Revenue, neither any issue survived nor there was any occasion for the Sub-Divisional Officer to return any finding on the issues framed in the case. 12. It is not the case that the decree as passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer is in any manner at variance with the terms of the compromise between the parties whereby 2 bighas and 2 biswas of land comprised in Khasra No. 1171/2 on the western side shall go to the respondents Nos. 5 & 6 and the remaining land of khasra No. 1171/2 and that of Khasra No. 1172 shall go the petitioners. 13. The decree so passed by the Trial Court being in accord with the compromise entered into between the parties and duly verified before the Board has rightly not been interfered with by the Revenue Appellate Authority and by the Board of Revenue in the orders impugned. The Board of Revenue has not committed any jurisdictional error in rejecting the baseless appeal filed by the petitioners by its impugned order dated 23.4.2010. This writ petition, therefore, remains bereft of substance and deserves to be rejected. 14. However, in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is made clear that rejection of this writ petition shall not be prejudice to the petitioners in taking recourse to any other remedy, but in accordance with law. This writ petition fails and is, therefore, rejected.