JUDGMENT : 1. Somewhat peculiar facts have given rise to filing of the present writ petition. The parties to dispute herein are three real sisters who have inherited agricultural land and Abadi from their mother. They initially agreed for the property to be settled in a manner such that each party got a fair share and also executed/signed a family settlement/compromise before the Tehsildar, which was acted upon and mutation was carried out in the revenue records in terms of the compromise. However, greed on part of one of the daughters, later, led to filing of an application for correction in the revenue records, notwithstanding the compromise, leading to filing of the present writ petition. 2. Late Patiraji Devi was the owner in possession of 5.344 hectares of agricultural land alongwith certain Abadi etc. situated in Mauja Saraeegarh & Aamdeeh, Pargana Vijaygarh, Tehsil Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra. She died on 1.11.2011 leaving behind three married daughters namely Smt. Vimla Devi, Smt. Nirmala Devi and Smt. Pramila Devi. During her lifetime she extended two registered deeds i.e. a will on 30.3.2011, bequeathing her agricultural estate amongst the three daughters such that a slightly larger share come to the youngest daughter Smt. Pramila Devi and remaining land getting equally divided in the two elder daughters. The second instrument is a registered gift executed 09 days prior to her death i.e. 21.10.2011, giving 1.9696 hectares of agricultural land exclusively to the eldest daughter Smt. Vimla Devi, the petitioner before this Court. Soon after her death a family settlement/compromise was acted upon amongst the three daughters and it was also reduced in writing and presented before the Tehsildar in mutation proceedings. As per the compromise/settlement the three sisters resolved their differences and were also put in possession over their respective share, as per the compromise. This compromise has been accepted by the competent authority and names of three sisters got mutated over the land left behind by Late Patiraji Devi in terms of the compromise. The compromise filed before the revenue authorities in mutation proceedings has not been challenged. This compromise has been accepted by the competent authority and names of three sisters got mutated over the land left behind by Late Patiraji Devi in terms of the compromise. The compromise filed before the revenue authorities in mutation proceedings has not been challenged. However, Smt. Vimla Devi, the eldest daughter later moved an application for correction of records under Section 202 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, on the ground that mutation entry in the revenue record is contrary to the intent expressed by the testator in the two registered deeds and so the revenue records be corrected, accordingly. This application was allowed by the Naib Tehsildar. An appeal filed against it by the two younger sisters came to be allowed and the revision filed against it has also been dismissed thereby restoring the mutation entry in terms of the family settlement/compromise. Aggrieved by the orders passed in appeal/revision in proceedings under Section 202 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901 the eldest sister Smt. Vimla Devi has filed this writ petition. 3. The execution of above-noted registered deeds by Smt. Patiraji Devi is not specifically challenged. The registered will is on record of writ proceedings as Annexure CA-1. At page 28 of the counter affidavit the testament provides for carving of three equal shares between the daughters with Smt. Pramila Devi, the youngest daughter getting an additional 0.253 hectares land over Plot No.2002. 4. It transpires that after the death of Smt. Patiraji Devi on 1.11.2011, the three daughters moved applications for mutating their names over the land left behind by their mother. The eldest daughter Smt. Vimla Devi apparently filed application claiming exclusive share over the property gifted to her on 21st October, 2011 and also claimed 1/3rd share as per will over the remaining agricultural property. The two younger sisters also applied for mutation as per the will. It is at this stage that good sense appears to have prevailed upon the sisters and instead of challenging the gift deed on the plaussible grounds that it was obtained by exercising undue influence, they agreed to appropriate the property in following manner:- (i). The two younger sisters also applied for mutation as per the will. It is at this stage that good sense appears to have prevailed upon the sisters and instead of challenging the gift deed on the plaussible grounds that it was obtained by exercising undue influence, they agreed to appropriate the property in following manner:- (i). Land admeasuring 1.9696 hectares given to Smt. Vimla Devi by way of gift would go to her and she will also be entitled to 1/3rd share over Abadi and Appurtenant land of Plot No.125- B- (ii) The remaining agricultural land left behind by Smt. Patiraji Devi would be divided as per the will amongst the two remaining daughters with some extra land going to the youngest daughter in terms of the will. Smt. Vimla Devi agreed to give up her share over the remaining land on the basis of will. Based upon such family settlement/compromise the sisters were put in possession over their respective shares and an order to that effect was passed in mutation proceedings by the Revenue Inspector on 4.11.2011. A joint compromise affidavit was also signed and presented by the three sisters on 19.12.2011 before the Tehsildar acknowledging the family settlement/compromise. The affidavit clearly disclosed that sisters were satisfied with the order passed in the mutation proceedings on 4.11.2011. Tehsildar, consequently, passed orders on 19.12.2011 and 31.1.2012 directing the names of three sisters to be recorded in terms of settlement/compromise. 5. It would be worth noticing, at this stage, that in mutation proceedings statement of Smt. Vimla Devi was also recorded as per which she voluntarily agreed to give up her remaining share over the agricultural land left behind by the mother under will in case her exclusive share over the agricultural land given to her by way of gift is accepted by the two sisters. The orders passed in mutation proceedings, based upon family settlement/ compromise, is not assailed. The effect of family settlement/compromise was that out of agricultural estate left behind by Smt. Patiraji Devi measuring 5.3440 hectares, the eldest daughter got 1.9696 hectare land, which was a little more than 1/3rd share. The orders passed in mutation proceedings, based upon family settlement/ compromise, is not assailed. The effect of family settlement/compromise was that out of agricultural estate left behind by Smt. Patiraji Devi measuring 5.3440 hectares, the eldest daughter got 1.9696 hectare land, which was a little more than 1/3rd share. The second daughter Smt. Nirmala Devi (respondent no.6) got 1.8853 hectare land, whereas the youngest daughter Smt. Pramila Devi (respondent no.7) apart from her 1/3rd share admeasuring 1.8853 hectare also got exclusive additional land over Plot No.2002, admeasuring 0.2530 hectares, taking her share in the agricultural land as 2.1383 hectares. So far as Abadi and Appurtenant land is concerned, all three sisters were given equal shares. 6. Records reveal that though the family settlement/compromise and the consequential orders of mutation were not challenged but an application under Section 202 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 came to be filed on 30.8.2012 for correcting the revenue records on the ground that mutation entries were contrary to the express intent of the testator. The application filed under Section 202 of the L.R. Act, 1901 is not annexed with the writ proceedings. However, objections filed against it are on record as Annexure-8 to the counter affidavit. As per the objection there is no error or omission in the mutation order/records, and therefore, the plea of correction is misconceived. In para 12 of the objection it is pleaded that the gift deed allegedly executed on 21.10.2011 is fraudulently procured, by impersonation, and while the two younger sisters were preparing/contemplating to challenge it, Smt. Vimla Devi came forward with the proposal to amicably resolve the issue, and based upon such representation the compromise was arrived at resulting in passing of the mutation orders. It is also urged that filing of application for correction under Section 202 of the L.R. Act, 1901 is clearly barred by limitation and is otherwise unsustainable in law. 7. The Naib Tehsildar allowed the application filed under Section 202 of the L.R. Act, 1901 vide his order dated 20.12.2013 on the ground that specific intent of testator in the registered gift and will could not be varied on the basis of family settlement/compromise. This order has, however, been reversed in appeal by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 11.4.2014 and the revision filed against it has also been dismissed by the Commissioner on 28.4.2016. This order has, however, been reversed in appeal by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 11.4.2014 and the revision filed against it has also been dismissed by the Commissioner on 28.4.2016. Aggrieved by the orders dated 11.4.2014 and 28.4.2016 the eldest daughter has filed the present writ petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the registered will and the gift deed have not been challenged by anyone, and therefore, the wish of testator must be respected and orders of mutation ought to be strictly as per it notwithstanding the alleged compromise by the parties. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Arjan Singh Vs. Punit Ahluwalia and others, reported in 2009 (107) RD 259 to submit that the compromise since is contrary to law, as such, it is liable to be ignored. Reliance is also placed upon a judgment of this Court in Ram Abhilakh and others Vs. D.D. C. and others, reported in 2017 (135) RD 605 , wherein it is held that co-tenancy cannot be granted on the basis of an admission by the parties. 9. Per contra, Sri H.K. Asthana appearing for the respondents submits that gift is not executed by mother and is actually a sham document but before it could be challenged the petitioner herself proposed amicable resolution of dispute, which was accepted by the parties, and was given effect to on the spot and also in the revenue records. It is contended that gift deed was accepted only in view of petitioner’s statement not to claim any further land on the basis of will. Submission is that petitioner is estopped from changing her stand, particularly as she has availed benefit of the compromise. It is also argued that application filed under Section 202 L.R. Act, 1901 lacks merit, as there is no error or omission which may require correction and the courts below have rightly rejected petitioner’s application in that regard. 10. I have heard Sri Narendra Deo Upahdayay, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri H.K. Asthana, learned counsel for the respondents and have perused the materials brought on record. 11. Facts relevant for the present controversy have already been noticed, and therefore, need not be reiterated. There is no issue on facts about execution of two registered deeds, as also the date of death of the mother. 11. Facts relevant for the present controversy have already been noticed, and therefore, need not be reiterated. There is no issue on facts about execution of two registered deeds, as also the date of death of the mother. The gift has been executed merely 09 days prior to death of the mother. It appears that the gift was not acceptable to the two younger sisters but the need to challenge it was obviated on account of amicable settlement having been worked out between the parties. Admittedly the mother died on 1.11.2011 and soon thereafter the settlement was worked out resulting in passing of an order by the Revenue Inspector on 4.12.2011. This settlement has been acknowledged in the compromise filed before the Tehsildar on 19.12.2011, duly signed by the three sisters on affidavit. An equitable arrangement for devolution of mother’s estate has been worked out in the compromise. Based upon it orders of mutation were passed on 19.12.2011 and 31.1.2012 by the competent authorities. This Court finds substance in the contention advanced on behalf of respondents that the gift deed was accepted by the two younger daughters only on account of the compromise. The petitioner has taken advantage of the compromise, inasmuch as the transfer of land in her favour by virtue of gift has been accepted by the other two sisters only on account of compromise/settlement. The compromise itself is not challenged. The question is as to whether the petitioner having entered into a family settlement/ compromise with her younger sisters and having secured an order of mutation in her favour of the land given in gift to her can be permitted to indirectly question it, subsequently, by seeking correction in the revenue records? The other question which arises for consideration in the facts of the present case is as to whether the compromise worked out between the parties is contrary to law and can be quashed in proceedings of correction of records under Section 202 of the L.R. Act, 1901? 12. The law relating to sanctity of compromise in such matters came to be examined by the Supreme Court in Kale and others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, reported in AIR 1976 SC 807 , and is consistently followed in subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court. 12. The law relating to sanctity of compromise in such matters came to be examined by the Supreme Court in Kale and others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, reported in AIR 1976 SC 807 , and is consistently followed in subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court. The object of family settlement and the binding effect which it carries have been eloquently summed up in following words:- “Before dealing with the respective contentions put forward by the parties, we would like to discuss in general the effect and value of family arrangements entered into between the parties with a view to resolving disputes once for all. By virtue of a family settlement or arrangement members of a family descending from a common ancestor or a near relation seek to sink their differences and disputes, settle and resolve their conflicting claims or disputed titles once for all in order to buy peace of mind and bring about complete harmony and goodwill in the family. The family arrangements are governed by a special equity peculiar to themselves and would be enforced if honestly made. In this connection, Kerr in his valuable treatise "Kerr on Fraud" at p. 364 makes the following pertinent observations regarding the nature of the family arrangement which may be extracted thus; "The principles which apply to the case of ordinary compromise between strangers, do not equally apply to the case of compromises in the nature of family arrangements. Family arrangements are governed by a special equity peculiar to themselves, and will be enforced if honesty made, although they have not been meant as a compromise, but have proceeded from an error of all parties, originating in mistake or ignorance of fact as to that their rights actually are, or of the points On which their rights actually depend." The object of the arrangement is to protect the family from long drawn litigation cr perpetual strifes which mar the unity and solidarity of the family and create hatred and bad blood between the various members of the family. Today when we are striving to build up an egalitarian society and are trying for a complete reconstruction of the society, to maintain and uphold the unity and homogeneity of the family which ultimately results in the unification of the society and, therefore, of the entire country, is the prime need of the hour. Today when we are striving to build up an egalitarian society and are trying for a complete reconstruction of the society, to maintain and uphold the unity and homogeneity of the family which ultimately results in the unification of the society and, therefore, of the entire country, is the prime need of the hour. A family arrangement by which the property is equitably divided between the various contenders so as to achieve an equal distribution of wealth instead of concentrating the same in the hands of a few is undoubtedly a milestone in the administrating of social justice. That is why the term "family" has to be understood in a wider sense so as to include within its fold not only close relations or legal heirs but even those persons who may have some sort of antecedent title, a semblance of a claim or even if they have a spes successions so that future disputes are sealed for ever and the family instead of fighting claims inter se and wasting time, money and energy on such fruitless or futile litigation is able to devote its attention to more constructive work in the larger interest of the country. The Courts have, therefore, leaned in favour of upholding a family arrangement instead of disturbing the same on technical or trivial grounds. Where the Courts find that the family arrangement suffers from a legal lacuna or a formal defect the rule of estoppel is pressed into service and is applied to shut out plea of the person who being a party to family arrangement seeks to unsettle a settled dispute and claims to revoke the family arrangement under which he has himself enjoyed some material benefits. The law in England on this point is almost the same. In Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 17, Third Edition, at pp. 215-216, the following apt observations regarding the essentials of the family settlement and the principles governing the existence of the same are made: "A family arrangement is an agreement between members of the same family, intended to be generally and reasonably for the benefit of the family either by compromising doubtful or disputed rights or by preserving the family property or the peace and security of the family by avoiding litigation or by saving-its honour. The agreement may be implied from a long course. The agreement may be implied from a long course. Of dealing, but it is more usual to embody or to effectuate the agreement in a deed to which the term "family arrangement" is applied. Family arrangements are governed by principles which are not applicable to dealings between strangers. The court, when deciding the rights of parties under family arrangements or claims to upset such arrangements, considers what in the broadest view of the matter is most for the interest of families, and has regard to considerations which in dealing with transactions between persons not members of the same family, would not be taken into account. Matters which would be fatal to the validity of similar transactions between strangers are not objections-to the binding effect of family arrangements". In other words to put the binding effect and the essentials of a family settlement in a concretised form, the matter may be reduced into the form of the following propositions: (1) The family settlement must be a bona fide one so as to resolve family disputes and rival claims by a fair and equitable division or allotment of properties between the various members of the family; (2) The said settlement must be voluntary and should not be induced by fraud, coercion or undue influence: (3) The family arrangement may be even oral in which case no registration is necessary; (4) It is well-settled that registration would be necessary only if the terms of the family arrangement are reduced into writing. Here also, a distinction should be made between a document containing the terms and recitals of a family arrangement made under the document and a mere memorandum pre pared after the family arrangement had already been made either for the purpose of the record or for in formation of the court for making necessary mutation. In such a case the memorandum itself does not create or extinguish any rights in immovable properties and therefore does not fall within the mischief of s. 17(2) of the Registration Act and is, therefore, not compulsorily registrable; (5) The members who may be parties to the family arrangement must have some antecedent title, claim or interest even a possible claim in the property 'It which is acknowledged by the parties to the settlement. Even if one of the parties to the settlement has no title but under the arrangement the other party relinquishes all its claims or titles in favour of such a person and acknowledges him to be the sole 9 owner, then the antecedent title must be assumed and the family arrangement will be upheld and the Courts will find no difficulty in giving assent to the same; (6) Even if bona fide disputes, present or possible, which may not involve legal claims are settled by a bona fide family arrangement which is fair and equitable the family arrangement is final and binding on the parties to the settlement. The principles indicated above have been clearly enunciated and adroitly adumbrated in a long course of decisions of this Court as also those of the Privy Council and other High Courts, …... …….... …. Even bona fide dispute present or possible, which may not involve legal claims would be sufficient. Members of a joint Hindu family may to maintain peace or to bring about harmony in the family, enter into such a family arrangement. If such an agreement is entered into bona fide and the terms thereto are fair in the circumstances of a particular case, the courts would more readily give assent to such an agreement than to avoid it." Thus it would appear from a review of the decisions analysed above that the Courts have taken a very liberal and broad view of the validity of the family settlement and have always tried to uphold it and maintain it. The central idea in the approach made by the Courts is that if by consent of parties a matter has been settled, it should not be allowed to be re-opened by the parties to the agreement on frivolous or untenable grounds.” The Supreme Court further observed that a family arrangement being binding on the parties to the arrangement clearly operates as a estoppel against the one who has taken advantage under the settlement/compromise from revoking or challenging the same. Observations in that regard are apposite and consequently reproduced hereinafter:- “This Court has also clearly laid down that a family arrangement being binding on the parties to the arrangement clearly operates as an estoppel so as to preclude any of the parties who have taken advantage under the agreement from revoking or challenging the same. …...” 13. Observations in that regard are apposite and consequently reproduced hereinafter:- “This Court has also clearly laid down that a family arrangement being binding on the parties to the arrangement clearly operates as an estoppel so as to preclude any of the parties who have taken advantage under the agreement from revoking or challenging the same. …...” 13. It is by now well settled in law that courts would lean in favour of family settlement unless it is unfair, tainted by fraud or lacks bona fide. The object clearly being that if dispute between the parties is resolved by consent then such settlement must not be reopened unless one of the above-noted mischiefs is pleaded and proved in the facts of the case. 14. Before proceeding further it would be necessary to take note of para 12 of the objection filed by the respondents to the application for correction filed under Section 202 of the L.R. Act, 1901. Para 12 is extracted hereinafter:- ^^12- ;g fd okLro esa foeyk nsoh dk dksbZ yxko eq0 ifrjkth ds thoudky esa eq0 ifrjkth ls ugha Fkk cfYd eq0 ifrjkth dh lsok Vgy dsoy ge vkifRrdrkZx.k gh djrh jghA foeyk nsoh o mlds ifr 'kf’kdkUr flag us eq0 ifrjkth ds uktkudkjh esa fdlh nhxj efgyk dks mlds LFkku ij [kM+k djds ,d tkyh&QthZ o fn[kkoVh cD’kh’kukek fnukad 21-10-2011 bZ0 dks rS;kj djk fy;k gS vkSj tc ge vkifRrdrkZx.k us mDr tkyh o QthZ cD’kh’kukek dks pqukSrh nsus o fof/kd dk;Zokgh djus dk Á;kl fd;k rks foeyk nsoh o mlds ifr 'kf’kdkUr flag us vkifRrdrkZx.k ls bTtr dh ckj&ckj nqgkbZ nsus yxs vkSj tk;nkn futkbZ ls viuk lHkh vf/kdkj (Right and claim) lekIr djus dk cpu fn;s] ftlls ge vkifRrdrkZx.k us rRle; o rRdky dksbZ fof/kd dk;Zokgh foeyk nsoh o mlds ifr 'kf’kdkUr o mlds lg;ksfx;ksa ds fo:) ugh fd;s vkSj rRØe esa foeyk nsoh us U;k;ky; Jheku th le{k Loa; mifLFkr vkdj tk0fu0 ds lEcU/k esa lqygukek o l’kiFk c;ku U;k;ky; esa vafdr djkdj viuk vf/kdkj lekIr dj dsoy ge vkifRrdrhZx.k dk gh tk;nkn futkbZ ij uke vafdr djkus dk fuosnu fd;k rn~uqlkj U;k;ky; }kjk ukekUrj.k vkns’k fnukad 31-01-2012 gh ikfjr gqvk FkkA fdUrq vc foeyk nsoh o mlds ifr 'kf’kdkUr flag us iqu% nqfu;koh ykyp esa iMdj orZeku ÁkFkZuk i= U;k;ky; Jheku~th le{k ÁLrqr fd;k gS tks dRrbZ xzkg~; ;ksX; ugha gSA** 15. The family settlement/compromise arrived at between the parties appears to be fair, inasmuch as a reasonable share of the property left behind by the mother in agricultural land goes to the three daughters. The Abadi has been equally distributed amongst the three daughters in terms of the will. From the perusal of above-noted objection it is apparent that the two younger sisters were not satisfied with the gift but the deed was not challenged in view of settlement/compromise arrived at between the three sisters. The petitioner has herself taken advantage of the settlement and her name has been mutated on the basis of gift relying upon the settlement/compromise. Having taken advantage of the settlement/compromise the petitioner cannot be permitted to subsequently turn around and question the effect of compromise in the garb of initiating proceedings for correction in the revenue records. Law is otherwise settled that where the parties intend to assail the settlement/compromise they must specifically plead and prove the circumstances, on the basis of which such settlement is sought to be challenged. In the facts of the present case the petitioner has not specifically challenged the compromise/family settlement and her attempt to question it without specifying grounds of challenge, in proceedings for correction of records, cannot be sustained. The parties will have to be held bound by the compromise/family settlement entered into and acted upon by them. Compromise/settlement amongst the family members for inheriting the property left behind by the common ancestor may contain terms at variance with what is otherwise envisioned in the rules of succession/testament, unless it is found to be unfair or obtained by collusion, fraud or misrepresentation etc. Such family arrangement/compromise cannot be treated as being contrary to law. The judgment of Apex Court in Arjan Singh (supra) will, therefore, have no applicability in the facts of the present case. The judgment of this Court in Ram Abhilakh (supra) also will have no applicability. The petitioner Smt. Vimla Devi could clearly give up her right to claim land under the will in order to persuade the sisters to accept the gift and such settlement cannot be opened at the instance of the present petitioner, as she has taken benefit of it. Her plea to question the settlement is impermissible in view of the equitable principle of estoppel. Her plea to question the settlement is impermissible in view of the equitable principle of estoppel. The binding effect of compromise also cannot be avoided in proceedings for correction of records on the ground that devolution of estate is contrary to course contemplated in law. Special equity governing family settlement will be enforced, when honestly made, even if it is based on ignorance of fact as to the rights in law. The intent of testator cannot be pressed into service to question the compromise voluntarily entered into by the petitioner in the facts of the present case. 16. The petitioner having taken advantage of the compromise is otherwise estopped from challenging the compromise, particularly when there is no challenge to the compromise on any of the grounds permissible in law. Proceedings in the present case have been initiated by filing an application under Section 202 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, which is reproduced hereinafter:- “202. Correction of error or omission.-Any Court or officer by whom an order has been passed in any proceeding under this Act may, within ninety days of such order, either of his own motion or on the application if a party, correct any error or omission, not affecting a material part of the case, after such notice to the parties as may be necessary.” 17. Section 202 of the L.R. Act, 1901 permits filing of an application for correcting any error or omission in an order not affecting a material part of the case, after notice to the parties, within a period of 90 days. No specific case of error or omission is pleaded or substantiated in the facts of the present case. The grounds which are set out in this case for invoking jurisdiction under Section 202 of the L.R. Act, 1901 clearly go beyond the scope of proceedings for correcting any error or omission in the order or proceedings of revenue authorities. The appellate court and revisional court have, therefore, correctly rejected the application filed by the present petitioner under Section 202 of the L.R. Act, 1901. It has already been noticed that a fair settlement for devolution of property from the mother to her three daughters has been agreed upon in the family settlement/compromise, which has also been given effect to. The compromise is not under challenge on any of the grounds permitted in law. It has already been noticed that a fair settlement for devolution of property from the mother to her three daughters has been agreed upon in the family settlement/compromise, which has also been given effect to. The compromise is not under challenge on any of the grounds permitted in law. The effect of compromise, therefore, cannot be nullified in the garb of proceedings initiated for correction in records under Section 202 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901. 18. Writ petition, accordingly, is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.