JUDGMENT 1. - The case comes up on an application being IA No. 2458/2013 seeking early hearing of the writ petition filed by the respondents. 2. By the agreement of the counsels, the application is allowed and the arguments are heard. 3. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Roop Kanwar D/o late Sh. Udai Singh and sister of respondent No. 1-Sohan Singh aggrieved by the order of the Board of Revenue Annex.8 dated 7.9.2010 in Appeal No. 9490/2007/Udaipur, Smt. Roop Kanwar v. Sohan Singh as well as order of the Revenue Appellate Authority Annexure-7 dated 25.9.2007 passed in Appeal No. 199/2006, Sohan Singh v. Sint. Roop Kanwar , whereby these two Revenue Courts below reopened the consent decree in a suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff Sint. Roop Kanwar under Section 88 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 on 19.5.1997 by the learned Court of S.D.O., Vallabh Nagar in Revenue Suit No. 202/1996, Roop Kanwar v. Sohan Singh . 4. The suit was filed by the plaintiff Roop Kanwar claiming that she had ⅓rd share in the ancestral and joint agricultural land total measuring 17 bighas and 18 biswas in Araji Nos. 3336 and 3302 etc. as mentioned in the said decree dated 19.5.1997 and on the written statement filed by the defendant-brother Sohan Singh and mother Sint. Chhagan Bai W/o Udai Singh admitting her plaint, the learned trial Court of S.D.O. after obtaining Commissioner's report and examining the PW-1 plaintiff herself, without any cross-examination by the defendants and on the basis of documents produced on record, namely, the consent terms between the plaintiff-sister and defendants No. 1 and 2, brother and mother, their respective affidavits and compromise between the parties marked as Ex.6, the learned S.D.O. passed the consent decree on 19.5.1997 giving ⅓rd share of land in question to the plaintiff sister Roop Kanwar. 5. 5. On 1.8.2006 after about 9 years of the said consent decree, the responder appellant Sohan Singh (brother) filed an appeal against the said consent decrtc dated 19.5.1997 under Section 223 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and claiming tL.at the land in question was in fact allotted in his personal name on 16.12.1976, the land in question could -not be said to be the joint and ancestral property of the parties and therefore, the consent decree was not sustainable and therefore, the same deserves to be set aside by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority , nd the said appeal was filed alongwith the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of decree of 9 years in filing the said appeal, in Para 6 of which the appellant went to the extent of stating that the appellant carne to know of the said decree and judgment of the learned S.D.O. for the first time on 20.7.2006 when he enquired about the said 'khata' (entries in revenue record) from the Patwari and then the Patwari informed him that he has only ⅓rd share in the land in question. The learned Revenue Appellate Authority surprisingly without passing any order on condonation application or even condoning the delay as such despite opposition to this effect by the respondent-sister Roop Kanwar as noticed in Para 13 of the impugned order itself and without even allowing specifically application filed by the appellant Sohan Singh under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. alongwith which the appellant Sohan Singh purportedly wanted to produce the allotment document of the year 1976 in his name before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, the learned Revenue Appellate Authority set aside the consent decree dated 19.5.1997 and remanded the case back to the learned S.D.O. for fresh trial. Para 11 till end of the order dated 25.9.2007 of learned Revenue Appellate Authority is reproduced below for ready reference: " 11- jsLiks.MsUM dh rjQ ls dFku gS fd vkns'k 41 fu;e 27] lh0ih0lh0 }kjk izLrqr nLrkost dh IyhfMax v/khuLFk U;k;ky; esa ugha gSA vr% vihy esa fjdkWMZ izLrqr ugha dj ldrsA 12- leLr uthjsa orZeku izdj.k esa ykxw ugha gksrh gSA ;g vihy rduhdh vk/kkj ij iks"k.kh; ugha gSA 13- vihy 9 o"kZ ckn izLrqr dh xbZ gSA okn ds tokc esa lgefr iznku dh gS vr% tkudkjh ls badkj djuk Lohdk;Z ugha gksrk gSA 14- xq.kkoxq.k ij Hkh ;fn v/khuLFk U;k;ky; esa vkoaVu ckcr~ tokc fn;k gksrk rks rudh cudj fu.kZ; gks tkrkA vihy U;k;ky; esa vkoaVu & fu;eu dk ykHk ugha ys ldrsA 15- vihyk.V ifjokj esa iq= larku gSA vr% firk ds thoudky esa vftZr lEifRr la;qDr fgUnq ifjokj dh gksrh gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa fu.kZ; o fMdzh fof/kor~ gSA vr% vihy lO;; fujLr dh tkosA 16- mi;i{kksa dh cgl ij euu fd;k x;k rFkk v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dh i=koyh ij miyC/k nLrkostksa dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA leLr uthjksa ,oa rF;ksa ds euu ds ckn v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; xq.kkoxq.k ij izfdz;k lafgrkuqlkj fofu'p; ugha fd;s tkus o ek= ekSf[kd lk{; ij vk/kkfjr gksus ls vihy ;ksX; ekuk tkrk gSA vof/k 'keu ;ksX; ekudj vihy ij xq.kkoxq.k ij fofu'p; fd;k tkrk gSA 17- vkns'k 41 fu;e 27 ds rgr izLrqr nLrkost ,d izdkj ls u;s rF; izLrqr fd;s x;s gS] ftldk mYys[k vihyk.V }kjk v/khuLFk U;k;ky; esa tokc esa mYys[k ugha fd;k gSA vr% ;g lk{; ,oa izek.khdj.k ds fcuk fopkj.kh; ugha curs gS] fdUrq U;k;kfgr esa budksa vLohdkj Hkh ugha fd;k tk ldrkA 18- vr% mijksDr leLr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij vihy vihyk.V Lohdkj dh tkdj v/khuLFk U;k;ky; mi[k.M vf/kdkjh oYyHkuxj izdj.k la[;k 202@1996 fu.kZ; fnukad 19-5-1997 o fMdzh fnukad 27-5-1997 vikLr dh tkrh gS rFkk iz'djd.k xq.kkoxq.k mi mHk;i{kksa dks lquokbZ dk volj iznku djrs gq, fuLrkj.k djus gsrq v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dks izfr izfrizsf"kr fd;k tkrk gSA 19- mHk;i{k lwfpr gks v/khuLFk U;k;ky; esa fnukad 27-11-2007 dks mifLFkr jgsA 20- fu.kZ; vkt fnukad 25-9-2007 dks Vafdr djk esjs gLrk{kj ls [kqys U;k;ky; esa lquk;k x;kA " 6. The second appeal filed by the present petitioner Roop Kanwar before the learned Board of Revenue was also dismissed by the impugned order did. The second appeal filed by the present petitioner Roop Kanwar before the learned Board of Revenue was also dismissed by the impugned order did. 7.9.2010 and the Board has upheld the remand order of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority by observing in the impugned order that since the petitioner suit was tiled by the plaintiff Roop Kanwar without impleading the State as defendant, which was necessary and even the State ought to have filed an appeal against the said consent decree and in absence of the same, the decree could not be sustained and thus on an altogether different ground, the learned Board of Revenue rejected the appeal of the present petitioner Roop Kanwar while noticing in the said para that defendant No. 1-broker Sohan Singh had filed the written statement admitting the averment made in the plaint by the plaintiff Roop Kanwar that the agricultural land in question was a joint and ancestral property and the plaintiff-sister had ⅓rd share in the said agricultural land. The said para of the learned Board of Revenue is quoted below for ready reference: " bl lkjs izdj.k dks ns[kus ls ;g Hkh izrhr gksrk gS fd okfnuh us vius firk dh Hkwfe ds lkFk&lkFk vius HkkbZ vkoafVr Hkwfe dks Hkh ekS:lh crkdj ?kks"k.kk ,oa caVokjs dk nkok is'k fd;kA izfroknh la[;k 1 us bdckyh tokcnkok is'k dj fn;kA mi[k.M vf/kdkjh us fcuk fdlh izdkj dh tkap fd;s okfn;k dk nkok fMdzh dj fn;kA bruk gh ugha la'kksf/kr fMdzh fnukad 27-5-1997 ds }kjk rks izfroknh dks vkoafVr leLr Hkwfe dh gh [kkrsnkjh okfnuh ds uke dj nh xbZ] tks fu;eksa ds foijhr gS] D;ksafd fdlh Hkh O;fDr dh LovftZr Hkwfe fdlh vU; O;fDr dks] pkgs og mldk HkkbZ vFkok cgu gh D;ksafd fdlh Hkh O;fDr dh LovftZr Hkwfe fdlh vU; O;fDr dks] pkgs og mldk HkkbZ vFkok cgu gh D;ksa u gks] bl rjg gLrkUrfjr ugha dh tk ldrh gSA Hkwfe dk gLrkUrj.k fof/k esa fofgr izko/kkuksa ds vUrxZr gh ;Fkk fodz;] nku vkfn ds }kjk gh fd;k tk ldrk gSA mi[k.M vf/kdkjh }kjk bl izdkj feyhHkxr ls ikfjr fu.kZ; o fMdzh ls jkT; ljdkj dks izkIr gksus okyh iath;u 'kqYd vkfn dh vk; ls oafpr fd;k x;k gSA bl fu.kZ; ds fo:) ;fn izfroknh vihy is'k ugha djrk rks Hkh jkT; ljdkj dks vihy is'k djuh pkfg;s FkhA i=koyh ds voyksdu ls ;g Hkh Li"V gS fd okn esa jkT; ljdkj dks i{kdkj gh ugha cuk;k x;k gS] tcfd ?kks"k.kk ,oa caVokjs ds nkos esa jkT; ljdkj vko';d i{kdkj gSA mDr foospukuqlkj Hkh fopkj.kh; U;k;ky; mi[k.M vf/kdkjh }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 19-5-1997 ,oa bldh vuqikyuk esa tkjh fMdzh fnukad 21-5-1997 rFkk la'kksf/kr fMdzh fnukad 27-5-1997 fof/k lEer u gksus ls fujLruh; gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa v/khuLFk vihyh; U;k;ky; us v/khuLFk fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; dks fujLr dj izdj.k esa nksuksa i{kksa dks xq.koxq.k ij lquokbZ dk volj nsdj fu.kZ; djus gsrq izfriszf"kr djus es dksbZ voS/kkfudrk ugha dh gSA QyLo:i ge ;g vihy [kkfjt djuk mfpr le>rs gSA " 7. Being aggrieved by these findings and orders of Revenue Appellate Authority and Board of Revenue, the petitioner Roop Kanwar preferred this writ petition before this Court on 22.10.2010, in which co-ordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 26.10.2010 issued notices and while permitting the learned S.D.O., Vallabh Nagar to proceed with the said proceedings, directed that he shall not finally dispose of the Suit No. 202/1996. 8. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Sajjan Singh, contended that the concurrent orders of the Revenue Courts below of learned Revenue Appellate Authority as well as the learned Board of Revenue are justified and do not require any interference by this Court in the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in view of the narrow scope delineated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, reported in 2010 AIR SCW 6387 . He further submitted that since the allotment of land in question was in favour of respondent Sohan- Singh in his individual name, therefore, the very basis of the partition suit filed by the, sister Roop Kanwar claiming ⅓rd share was not available to her and therefore and by mere remand of the proceedings to the learned S.D.O., no prejudice is caused to the parties and even to the petitioner Roop Kanwar and therefore, no interference in the impugned remand order is called for and the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. I have heard the learned counsels at some length and perused the record and impugned orders. 10. This Court is at loss to understand firstly the reason of filing of appeal against 'the consent decree dated 19.5.1997 by the .appellant Sohan Singh approximately after 9 years of consent decree in which he not only filed a written statement duly signed by himself and her mother Chhagan Bai alongwith his affidavit that the land in question was ancestral and joint and that the plaintiff- Smt. Roop Kanwar was entitled to ⅓rd share in the said agricultural land even though on that very day, even if his alleged 1976 allotment in his individual name to be considered, he was very well aware of that in the year 1997 and therefore, there was apparently no good reason for him to file a written statement alongwith his affidavit during the course of trial before the learned S.D.O. admitting the claim of the share of plaintiff-petitioner Roop Kanwar. That very document of the year 1976 could not furnish him a fresh reason to go back and resile from the consent decree after 9 years thereof in the year 2006 and surprisingly despite such a huge delay on his part, the learned Revenue Appellate Authority did not even choose to decide the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and despite such application for condonation of delay being opposed by the petitioner Sint. Roop Kanwar, the learned Revenue Appellate Authority choose to set aside the consent decree by the impugned order dated 25.9.2007. From the quoted portion of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority order, it also does not appear that he even allowed the application under Section (sic Order) 41 Rule 27 C.P.C., of the appellant Sohan Singh thereby taking the_ additional evidence viz. 1976 allotment document on record and finding it to be having some relevance and nexus with the matter, he could remand the matter back to the learned S.D.O. for fresh trial after such a long period. 11. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, no foundation existed with the learned Revenue Appellate Authority to allow the appeal of the appellant Sohan Singh which was not only highly belated but appears to have been filed on false and frivolous grounds. The only pretext which perhaps prompted him to file this appeal after 9 years of consent decree was that he came to know of the allotment of land in his personal name of the year 1976 only now in the year 2007 and surprisingly to cover up his lapse, he even makes a false statement in his application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act when he says that he came to know of this consent decree of the year 1997 in the year 2006 only when he enquired about his holding of land from Patwari. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, was not able to rebut sufficiently this false averment made by the respondent Sohan Singh in the said application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act which on the basis of record per se appears to be a false averment. Such litigants who take the process of law in their hands by making false averments before the Courts, cannot be encouraged and on the other hand, they deserve to be dealt with iron hands of justice. Such litigants who take the process of law in their hands by making false averments before the Courts, cannot be encouraged and on the other hand, they deserve to be dealt with iron hands of justice. The learned RAA had no reason to condone such a huge delay of 9 years and that too impliedly without any specific condonation of 9 years and even without allowing the application under Section (sic Order) 41 Rule 27 C.P.C., of appellant Sohan Singh, he remanded the matter back to the learned S.D.O. that too setting aside the consent decree of the parties in so called "Nyayahit" (interest of justice). There was apparently no interest of justice in favour of appellant Sohan Singh and therefore, the learned R.A.A. grossly erred in allowing the said appeal of the respondent Sohan Singh. 12. Unfortunately, the Board of Revenue also fell in the same error and taking altogether a different ground for dismissing the appeal of the present petitioner Sint. Roop Kanwar, the Board finds that in such a partition suit, since. it amounts to transfer of agricultural land, the State being a necessary party in the suit and the State having not been impleaded by the plaintiff-petitioner as a defendant, the consent decree was not sustainable. Even this ground taken by the learned Board of Revenue is not sustainable. The partition suit is nothing but declaration of respective rights of the parties in joint and ancestral property as per succession law. It does not amount to transfer of agricultural land in that sense and therefore, the State could not be said to be a necessary party, in the absence of which the suit itself could not be held to be maintainable. At least this could not be a ground, even if it had some significance, for setting aside the consent decree after so many years. At least this could not be a ground, even if it had some significance, for setting aside the consent decree after so many years. The learned Board of Revenue has also failed to look into the two important aspects of the matter, firstly the huge and unexplained delay in filing the appeal itself by the appellant Sohan Singh of 9 years and despite opposition of the said application and there being no specific order of the learned RAA condoning the delay also, whether such an order could be sustained or not an secondly whether on the basis of document of the year 1976, which was not even taken on record by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority by allowing the application under Section (sic Order) 41 Rule 27 C.P.C., whether the remand of case by setting aside the consent decree by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority was justified or not. Both these relevant and important aspects of the matter do not find any place in the reasoning given by the learned Board of Revenue while upholding the order of the learned RAA. That renders the order of the learned Board of Revenue also illegal and unsustainable. 13. Accordingly, the present writ petition of plaintiff Roop Kanwar deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed and the impugned order of the learned RAA dated 25.9.2007 (Annexure-7) and the impugned order of the learned Board of Revenue dated 7.9.2010 (Annexure-8) are set aside and the consent decree of the learned S.D.O. Annexure-3 dated 19.5.1997 is restored. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned and the learned Revenue Courts below forthwith.Petition Allowed. *******