JUDGMENT 1. - These two writ petitions, preferred against the common judgment and decree dated 10.02.2014 passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer ('the Board'/'the Board of Revenue') in two appeals (Nos. TA/6776/2012/Dausa and TA/6777/2012/Dausa), essentially involving common questions between the same parties, have been considered together; and are taken up for disposal by this common order. 2. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is of the view that while setting aside the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the subordinate Revenue Courts/Authorities, the two revenue suits leading to these petitions are required to be restored for re-consideration by the Trial Court i.e., the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Sikrai ('the SDO'). 3. As the matters are proposed to be remanded to the Trial Court for re-consideration, dilatation on all the factual and legal aspects is not necessary; and only a brief reference to the background aspects and reasons for remand would suffice. 4. The dispute between the contesting parties, closely related to each other, pertains to the agricultural land comprised in old Khasra Nos. 669, 673 and 678, ad measuring 23 bighas 6 biswas at Village Bhanderaj, Teshil Dausa, which was converted into new Khasra Nos. 2553 to 2368, 2472 to 2475, 2489 to 2491, 2526 to 2528, ad measuring 5.46 hectares. As per Jamabandi of Samvat Years 2034 to 2037, the said land was recorded in the name of Nanga son of Shri Kalya, Punnya son of Shri Govinda. The Settlement Department had issued one Parishodhan Patra (with regard to partition) dated 13.01.1983 wherein, the land in dispute was entered in the names of Sukhdev, Heera sons of Nanga (1/2 share) and Punnya, Nahnu sons of Govinda (1/2 share). 5. On 04.01.2008, the petitioner Sharvan son of Punnya filed a suit for declaration, partition and perpetual injunction with regard to land in question, being Revenue Suit No. 2/2008, while asserting that the name of his father's brother Nahnu came to be wrongly inserted in the revenue record by the settlement authorities and that ultimately, the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, sons of Nahnu, had agreed to get their names deleted from the record. The petitioner also asserted his possession over the land in question while referring to various of his dealings. 1 and 2, sons of Nahnu, had agreed to get their names deleted from the record. The petitioner also asserted his possession over the land in question while referring to various of his dealings. The petitioner alleged illegal interference by the respondents and sought declaration with other requisite reliefs.The contesting defendants resisted the claim of the petitioner while asserting that alteration of the revenue record was carried out by the settlement authorities on the basis of mutual consent of the parties; and that the said Parishodhan Patra had never been challenged. The petitioner alleged illegal interference by the respondents and sought declaration with other requisite reliefs.The contesting defendants resisted the claim of the petitioner while asserting that alteration of the revenue record was carried out by the settlement authorities on the basis of mutual consent of the parties; and that the said Parishodhan Patra had never been challenged. After taking the evidence on the issues framed, the learned SDO proceeded to dismiss the suit in the judgment and decree dated 25.04.2012 while determining the issues in the following manner:- rudh okbZy foospu fuEukafdr izdkj ls gSA 1- rudh ua0 1 %& vk;k oknh [k0ua0 2053 rk- 2368] 2472] 2473] 2474] 2475] 2489] 2490] 2491] 2526] 2527] 2528 dqy fdrk 26 okds xzke Hkk.Mkjst izfroknh la0 1 o 2 dk uke [kkrsnkjh ls gVk;s tkus dk gd j[krs gSaA ------oknh bl rudh dks fl) djus dk Hkkj oknh ij gSA i=koyh ij miyC/k nLrkost ls lkfcr gS fd mDr Hkwfe esa oknh o oknh ds firk iwU;k dh lgefr ls izfroknh ua0 1] 2 ds firk uguw o izfroknh ua0 1] 2 dk uke ls gqvk gS o foHkktu Hkh lgefr ls iwU;k dh gqvk gSA jftLVj~ c;ukek izfroknh 1] 2 dks gd feyk gSA izfroknh ua0 1] 2 dk uke gtQ djkus dk oknh dks dksbZ gd ugha gSA blfy, ;g rudh oknh ds f[kykQ o izfroknh ds i{k r; dh tkrh gSA 2- rudh ua0 2 & vk;k oknh mDr vkjkth esa ls rdkLek djkus o LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ikus dk gd j[krs gSaA ------oknh bl rudh dks fl) djus dk Hkkj oknh ij gSA iwoZ esa rdkLek oknh ds firk iwU;k dh lgefr ls gqvk gSA blfy;s oknh vc rdkLek djkus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA dkuwuu fjdkMsZM [kkrsnkj dkfct dk'rdkj izfroknhx.k dks LfkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ls ikcUn ugha fd;k tk ldrkA blfy, rudh oknh ds f[kykQ o izfroknh ds fo:) r; dh tkrh gSA 3- rudh ua0 3 %& vk;k izfroknhx.k Hkw&izcU/k foHkkx esa vkilh lgefr jftLVMZ fodz; i= ds vk/kkj ij [kkrsnkjh ls gtQ ugha fd;k tk ldrk gS cfYd xyr rF;ksa ij vk/kkfjr gksus ls [kkfjt ;ksX; gSA --------izfroknhx.k bl rudh dks fl) djus dk Hkkj izfroknhx.k ij gSA i=koyh ij miyC/k nLrkostkr ls ;g Hkyh Hkkafr lkfcr gS fd izfroknhx.k us Hkw&izcU/k foHkkx esa vkilh lgefr o jftLVj fodz; i= ds vk/kkj ij [kkrsnkjh vf/kdkjh izkIr fd;s gSA blfy, ;g rudh oknh ds f[kykQ o izfroknhx.k ds i{k esa fu;r dh tkrh gSA 4- rudh ua0 4 %& vk;k [kkrsnkj ds fo:) LfkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ikfjr ugha dh tk ldrh gS vr% nkok [kkjht ;ksX; gSA --------izfroknh bl rudh dh fl) djus dk Hkkj izfroknhx.k ij gSA fookfnr Hkwfe ds izfroknhx.k fjdkMsZM [kkrsnkj dkfct dk'rdkj gSA izfroknhx.k dk mDr Hkwfe ij dCtk gksuk Hkh lkfcr gSA dkuwuu [kkrsnkj ds f[kykQ LfkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk tkjh ugha dk tk ldrhA blfy, ;g rudh oknh ds f[kykQ o izfroknh ds i{k esa r; dh tkrh gSA 5- nknjlh & mijksDr rudhokbt foospu ds vk/kkj ij nkok oknhx.k [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA " 6. It is borne out from the record that on 05.07.2010, the respondents Kajod and Kishan sons of Nahnu, filed a separate suit before the SDO, seeking perpetual injunction against the present petitioner which was registered as Revenue suit No. 71/2010 (7/2012). This suit filed by the respondents appears to have simultaneously been considered with the above-referred suit filed by the petitioner. After taking the evidence in the suit filed by the respondents, the learned SDO proceeded to decree the same by the judgment and decree of the even date i.e., 25.04.2012 while determining the issues in the following manner. " rudh okbZt foospu fuEukafdr izdkj ls gS % 1- rudh ua- 1 %& vk;k oknhx.k [k0 ua0 2366] 2472] 2473] 2474] 2475] 2489] 2520] 2527] 2528 ru ekStk Hkk.Mkjst [k0 ua0 2356] 2357] 2358] 2359] 2369] 2373] 2364] 2367] 2490 esa izfroknhx.k ds fo:) LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ikus dk gd j[krs gSA -----------oknhx.k bl rudh dks fl) djus dk Hkkj oknhx.k ij gSA i=koyh ij miyC/k jsdkMZ ls oknhx.k mDr Hkwfe ds [kkrsnkj gksuk o dkfct gksuk lkfcr gSA izfroknh dk mDr Hkwfe ij dksbZ gd ugha gSA blfy, ;g rudh oknhx.k ds i{k esa o izfroknh ds f[kykQ r; dh tkrh gSA 2- rudh ua0 2 %& vk;k okn xyr rF;ksa ij izLrqr fd;k x;k gS vr% okn [kkfjt ;ksX; gSA bl rudh dks fl) djus dk Hkkj izfroknhx.k ij gSA ;g rudh oknhx.k ds i{k esa o izfroknh ds f[kykQ r; dh tkrh gSA 3- nknljh & mijksDr rudh okbt foospu ds vk/kkj ij nkok oknhx.k&fMdzh fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA " Aggrieved by the judgment and decree aforesaid, the present petitioner filed two separate appeals (bearing Nos. 46/2012 and 56/2012) before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur Camp, Dausa ('the RAA'), which were considered and decided together by the RAA in the common judgment and decree dated 26.07.2012. 46/2012 and 56/2012) before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur Camp, Dausa ('the RAA'), which were considered and decided together by the RAA in the common judgment and decree dated 26.07.2012. The RAA proceeded to allow both the appeals while observing as under:- " eSaus mHk;i{k dh cgl ij euu fd;kA i=koyh ,oa i=koyh ij miyC/k vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;kA fookfnr vkjkth [k-ua- 669 jdck 11 ch?kk 12 fcLok] [k0ua0 673 jdck 3 ch?kk 7 fcLok] [k0ua0 678 jdck 8 ch?kk 7 fcLok ds orZeku [kljk uEcj] [kljk ifj'kks/ku ds vuqlkj 2353] 2354] 2355] 2360] 2365] 2368] 2491] 2356] y0 2359] 2362 y- 2364] 2367] 2490] y0 2528] 2366] 2472] y0 2475 o 2489 cus gSaA udy tekcUnh lEor~ 2034&36 ds vuqlkj orZeku [k0ua0 ds lkfcd [k-ua- 669] 673] 678 dks [kkrsnkjh ukuxk i= dkY;k] iwU;k iq= xksfcUnk tkfr ekyh lk0 nsg ntZ gSA Hkw izcU/k foHkkx us Hkw izcU/k dk;Zokgh ds le; mDr fookfnr vkjkth dks ukuxk dh e'R;q ij fojklr dk [kljk ifj'kks/ku ls mlds iq= lq[knso o ghjk ds uke bUnzkt dh Lohd'fr gqbZA blh ifj'kks/ku i= esa iuqJ; djds Hkwekid us uksV vafdr fd;k gS fd iwU;k vius fgLls esa vius HkkbZ ugu dk uke Hkh ntZ djuk pkgrk gS blds vfrfjDr blh [kljk ifj'kks/ku la[;k 64 ls gh fookfnr vkjkth ds lgefr ls foHkktu izLrko fd;k x;kA bl izdkj Hkw izcU/k foHkkx us [kljk ifj'kks/ku ds tfj;s ukuxk dh fojklr uguw dk lgefr ls [kkrsnkj ifj'kks/ku ds tfj;s ukuxk dh fojklr uguw dk lgefr ls [kkrsnkj rFkk foHkktu Lohdkj fd;k x;k gSA bl izdj.k esa eq[; fcUnw ;g gS fd D;k Hkw&izcU/k foHkkx dks Hkw izcU/k dk;Zokgh ds le; [kkrsnkjh ds lEcU/k esa ifjofrZr djus rFkk [kkrsnkjh dh Hkwfe dk foHkktu djus dk vf/kdkj gS\ Hkw izcU/k dk;Zokgh ds le; e= iqjkus bUnzktksa dks nksgjkus dk vf/kdkj izkIr gSA [kkrsnkjh ds lEcU/k esa tc rd ifjorZu ugha dj ldrs gSa tc rd fd fdlh l{ke U;k;ky; }kjk rRlEcU/kh vkns'k tkjh ugha dj fn;s tkosA blh izdkj ;fn fdlh lg[kknsnkjh dh Hkwfe ds foHkktu dk iz'u gS rks Hkw izcU/k foHkkx dks ;g Hkh vf/kdkj ugha gSA Hkw izcU/k foHkkx dsoy iqjkus bUnzktkr dks gh nksgjk ldrk gSA cUnkscLr foHkkx dks [kkrsnkjh esa ifjorZu djus ;k foHkktu djus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gSA ekuuh; jktLo e.My] jktLFkku] vtesj esa vius vusdksa U;kf;d fu.kZ;ksa esa ;g fl)kUr izfrikfnr fd;k gSA Hkwfe ds caVokjk fd;k tkus dk izko/kku jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e esa Li"V :i ls vafdr fd;s x;s gSa ,oa bl ekeys esa izkFkfe ,oa vafre fMdzh tkjh fd;s tkus ckcr~ O;oLFkk gSA lgk;d Hkw izcU/k vf/kdkjh }kjk [kkrsnkjh ifjorZu o foHkktu djuk muds {ks=kf/kdkj ls ckgj dk dk;Z gS ,oa ,slh fLFkfr esa vkns'k 'kwU; izHkko j[kus okyk gksrk gSA orZeku izdj.k ds ifjizs{; esa mDr fl)kUr dks ;fn ifjf{kr djsa rks ;g Li"V gS fd lgk;d Hkw izcU/k vf/kdkjh }kjk [kljk ifj'kks/ku la[;k 64 Lohd'r djuk muds vf/kdkj {ks= ls ckgj tkdj fd;k x;k vkns'k fl) gksrk gSA vFkkZr~ ml vkns'k dks vk/kkj cukdj dksbZ O;fDr fdlh la;qDr [kkrsnkjh dh Hkwfe esa ls vf/kdkj izkIr ugha dj ldrk gSA vf/kuLFk U;k;ky; dks ;g vko';d Fkk fd bl ckcr rudh dk;e dh tkrh fd D;k cUnkscLr foHkkx [kkrsnkjh ifjorZu ,oa cVokjk lEcU/kh ikfjr fd;k x;k vkns'k dkuwuh izHkkx j[kus okyk gS vFkok ugha\ fdUrq vf/kuLFk U;k;ky; bl lEcU/k esa u rks dksbZ rudh gh dk;e dh u gh bl ij dksbZ xkSj fd;kA ,slh fLFkfr esa vihyk/khu fu.kZ; o fMdzh fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA mijksDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij vihy vihykUV Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA vf/kuLFk U;k;ky; mi[k.M vf/kdkjh] fldjk; }kjk ikfjr nksuksa vihyk/khu fu.kZ; o fMdzh fnukad 25-4-2012 ,rn~ }kjk fujLr fd;s tkdj cUnkscLr [kljk ifj'kks/ku la[;k 84 fnukad 13-1-1983 ds gky [k0a ua0 2353 yxk;r 2368] 2472] 2475] 2489 yxk;r 2491] 2525 yxk;r 2528 dqy fdrk 26 jdck 5-46 gS] okds xzke Hkk.Mkjst rglhy nkSlk esa fgLlk 1@2 dk vihykFkhZ Jo.k iq= iwU;k tkfr ekyh fuoklh Hkk.Mkjst dh <+k.kh pkScs dk cU/kk dks [kkrsnkjh ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gSA " 7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 26.07.2012, the respondents Kajod and Kishan, sons of Nanhu, filed two appeals, which have been allowed by the Board of Revenue in its impugned common judgment and decree dated 10.02.2014. The Board of Revenue took note of the submissions of parties, inter alia, that the RAA did not render the decision in conformity with the requirements of Order 41, Rule 31 CPC and allowed the appeals in a wholly cursory manner without stating its issue-wise findings; and that the RAA proceeded to decide the appeals despite the Board having stayed further proceedings in the transfer applications moved in the matters. The Board of Revenue observed that there was a stay order passed on 25.05.2012 staying further proceedings in Appeal No.42/2012 and calling for the comments from the Presiding Officer but the RAA yet proceeded to decide the matters; and as per the reply of the Presiding Officer, 'dasti' letter dated 25.05.2012 was produced before him for the first time only on 30.07.2012. The Board of Revenue rather felt dissatisfied on the reply of the Presiding Officer suggesting that its order had not been produced before the First Appellate Court for about two months. This apart, the Board of Revenue also observed that the decision had not been rendered by the RAA issue-wise and the judgment impugned did not conform to the requirements of the Order 41, Rule 31 CPC. The Board, thereafter, observed that it had two options i.e., either to remand the matter to the RAA or to decide the matter in appeal after recording issue-wise findings. The Board adopted the second course and, essentially with reference to the fact that Parishodhan Patra on which Punnya had stated his consent and whereupon Nahnu was taken as co-khatedar, had never been challenged, held that the petitioner Sharvan was not entitled to seek alteration of the revenue record and deletion of the names of respondents Nos.1 and 2, sons of Nahnu. The Board further decided other material issues in favour of the respondents Nos.1 and 2 and hence, proceeded to allow the appeals and restored the decisions of the Trial Court in relation to both the revenue suits. 8. The Board further decided other material issues in favour of the respondents Nos.1 and 2 and hence, proceeded to allow the appeals and restored the decisions of the Trial Court in relation to both the revenue suits. 8. Seeking to question the judgment and decree so passed by the Board of Revenue in relation to each of the suits, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decisions of this Court in the cases of Geega Ram & Anr. v. The Board of Revenue & Ors.: 2008(1) WLC 110 and Nisar Mohd. v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.: 2009 WLC (Raj.) UC 510 and contended that the settlement authorities were not empowered to change any entry in previous settlement records unless the change was to be brought about as a result of an order of the competent authority or acquisition or transfer. The learned counsel contended that the settlement authorities were bound to reflect the same position with regard to the records which existed at the material time; and they had no authority to change any entry; and even the alleged consent could not afford any basis for making changes in the record of rights by the settlement authorities. It is submitted that the Board of Revenue has omitted to consider such fundamental aspects of law, striking at the very jurisdiction of the settlement authorities and has passed the order merely with reference to the alleged consent, which was of no effect in law. It is submitted that the petitioner has continued to remain in possession of the land in dispute and his name has been entered as co-khatedar for 1/2 share of the land along-with other co-khatedars and was entitled to the relief as claimed in Revenue Suit No.2/2008. 9. Per contra, it is contended on behalf of the contesting respondents that after the compromise between the parties had been acted upon and the petitioner dealt with the land in his possession, the attempt on his part to get the record altered remains baseless; and he is not entitled to seek any change in the settled status of the parties by way of the baseless suit filed by him. It is submitted with reference to Rule 131(i)(a) of the Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957 that status of an estate holder could be altered by agreement of all the parties interested and it is clear that name of Nahnu was included in the records with the specific consent of the father of the petitioner i.e., Shri Punnya, brother of Nahnu. It is further submitted that the occasion for any determination by any authority would have arisen only if there were any dispute; but when there was no dispute between the parties and it was agreed by all concerned that name of Nahnu was to be included, the settlement authorities had not committed any error or illegality in issuing Parishodhan Patra in question. It is also submitted that against the order passed by the settlement authorities, if aggrieved, the said Shri Punnya or the petitioner could have filed the appeal under Section 75 of the Land Revenue Act but for them having not done so, the concluded order could not have been altered at the instance of the petitioner at the later stage. 10. This Court would hasten to observe that only an outline of the stand of the respective parties has been drawn here-in-above but without any comments on the merits either way. It is for the reason that a comprehension of the judgments and decrees as passed in these matters by the revenue authorities makes it ex facie clear that neither the Trial Court nor the First Appellate Court chose to deal with all the contentious issues adequately and appropriately; and proceeded to render wholly cursory and rather assumptive decisions. The considerations of the Trial Court as also of the First Appellate Court have been reproduced here-in-above and evident it is the said judgments fall short of specific and reasoned decisions on all the contentious issues after dealing with all the contentions of the parties. In the given set of facts and circumstances, this Court is clearly of the view that instead of deciding the issues involved in the suits as if the Original Court, the Board of Revenue ought to have remanded the matter to the Trial Court for decision afresh and in accordance with law. In the given set of facts and circumstances, this Court is clearly of the view that instead of deciding the issues involved in the suits as if the Original Court, the Board of Revenue ought to have remanded the matter to the Trial Court for decision afresh and in accordance with law. This is apart from the fact that even the Board of Revenue in its impugned common judgment dated 10.02.2014 cannot be said to have dealt with all the legal and factual issues involved in the matter. 11. In view of the above, this Court finds it rather expedient that while setting aside the questioned judgments and decrees as passed by the subordinate revenue Courts/Authorities, the two suits be restored for re-consideration by the Trial Court. 12. Accordingly and in view of the above, these petitions are partly allowed. The impugned judgments and decrees as passed by the subordinate Revenue Courts/Authorities are set aside. Revenue Suit No.2/2008: Sharvan v. Kajod & Ors. as also Revenue Suit No.71/2010 (7/2012): Kajod & Anr. v. Sharvan shall stand restored for re-consideration by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sikrai. 13. The contesting parties may appear before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sikrai on 16.05.2014 or on any other date, as might be fixed by the Trial Court. 14. It shall be expected of the Trial Court to ensure that all the parties concerned are noticed and then, hear the parties afresh and thereafter,decide the two suits as early as possible, preferably within three months from the first date of appearance of the contesting parties. No costs.Writ Petitions Partly allowed. *******