ORDER : 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs : “It is, therefore, prayed that by appropriate writ, order or direction, judgment dated 15.09.2023 (Annexure-12) passed by Board of Revenue in Review/Petition/LR/2023/2765/Jodhpur ‘Mumal Vs Devaram And Others’ may kindly be quashed and set aside and order dated 30.05.2023 (Annexure-6) passed by Board of Revenue in Revision/ Petition/LR/ 2022/ 3237/ Jodhpur ‘Mumal Vs Devaram And Others’ may also be quashed and set aside and Board of Revenue be directed to restore the Revision Petition no.REVISION/LR/NO.3237/2022 and same be decided afresh on merit. Any other order which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by the learned counsel of the petitioner, are that the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1956’) before the Additional District Collector (Second), Jodhpur against the respondents, stating therein that the petitioner’s father Late Shri Narayan Ram was having an agricultural land comprising khasra no. 138 Rakba 23 Bigha 19 Biswa situated at Village Uchiyarrada and the said land was recorded in the name of Late Narayan Ram. After the demise of the petitioner’s father (Narayan Ram), the land in question through transfer no. 86 dated 22.05.1992, on count of collusion between the respondents no.2 to 4 and the concerned Tehsildar and Patwari, was recorded in the name of the respondent no. 2 to 4, despite the fact that the petitioner falls under the first successor category. 2.1 Thereafter, learned Additional District Collector vide the judgment dated 09.09.2020 dismissed the aforesaid appeal; aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur under Section 76 of the Act of 1956, which was also dismissed vide the judgment dated 10.06.2022. 2.2 Subsequently, the petitioner filed a revision petition under Sections 84 & 9 of the Act of 1956 before the learned Board of Revenue (BOR) for Rajasthan, Ajmer, which however, on account of compromise between the parties and execution of relinquishment/release deed dated 23.05.2023, was sought to be withdrawn by way of filing a withdrawal application, as reflected in the impugned order dated 30.05.2023 passed by the learned BoR. 2.3. 2.3. The petitioner thereafter, filed a civil suit on 12.07.2023 against the respondent no.2 before the Additional Civil Judge No.2, Jodhpur Metropolitan, laying challenging to the aforementioned relinquishment/release deed, with a prayer for permanent injunction against the respondent no.2. 2.4 Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under Sections 86 and 9 of the Act of 1956 read with Section 151 CPC, before the learned BoR seeking recall of the aforementioned order dated 30.05.2023, stating therein that the aforementioned withdrawal application was wrongly filed under some misconception and under concealment, and thus, the original revision preferred before the learned BoR may be restored. The learned BoR vide the impugned judgment dated 15.09.2023 rejected the said application. Thus, the present petition has been preferred against the order dated 30.05.2023 and the judgment dated 15.09.2023 passed by the learned BoR. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an old and illiterate lady aged 70 years, and that, the compromise in question is not sustainable in the eye of law, as the same was executed under material concealment on the part of the respondents, leading to withdrawal of the revision before the learned BoR on 30.05.2023. 3.1. Learned counsel further submits that the withdrawal application in question was filed under wrong impression and material concealment, and that, the petitioner also lodged an FIR against the respondent no.2 before the concerned police station, but ignoring the said vital aspect of the matter, the learned revenue authorities below declined to grant the relief prayed for by the petitioner, vide the impugned order and judgment. 3.2. Learned counsel also submits that the respondents by way of raising the construction are bent upon to change the status of the land in question, which clearly affects the rights of the petitioner, and therefore, the impugned order and judgment are not sustainable in the eye of law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the mutation was recorded on 22.05.1992, while the petitioner preferred the appeal after an inordinate and unexplained delay of 22 years. 4.1. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the mutation was recorded on 22.05.1992, while the petitioner preferred the appeal after an inordinate and unexplained delay of 22 years. 4.1. It was further submitted that the petitioner has withdrawn the case before the learned BoR on 30.05.2023, on count of compromise duly entered between the parties, and that, the petitioner also received the money towards settlement from the respondent no.2; thereafter, the petitioner as well as her sister Kalki Devi executed relinquishment/release deed dated 23.05.2023, which was registered before the Sub-Registrar (Stamps), Jodhpur whereby they relinquished all their rights pertaining to the land in question in favour of the respondents. 4.2. It was also submitted that after receiving complete payment towards the settlement, the petitioner executed a consent deed dated 29.05.2023 in favour of the respondent no.2, whereafter, the petitioner sought to withdraw the aforementioned revision, as reflected in the impugned order dated 30.05.2023 passed by the learned BoR. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 6. This Court observes that the petitioner filed the aforementioned appeal before the learned Additional District Collector against the respondents and the same was dismissed on 09.09.2020; aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner, which was also dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the learned BOR, during the pendency whereof, the petitioner filed an application for withdrawal of the same, on count of compromise between the parties and execution of the relinquishment/release deed dated 23.05.2023, which was allowed vide the impugned order dated 30.05.2023. 7. This Court further observes that subsequently, the petitioner filed an application before the learned BoR seeking recall of the impugned order dated 30.05.2023, stating therein that the withdrawal application was the outcome of the fraudulent act of concealment of material facts, on the part of the respondents, and thus, prayed to restore the original revision petition. The learned BoR vide impugned judgment dated 15.09.2023 dismissed the said application. 8. The learned BoR vide impugned judgment dated 15.09.2023 dismissed the said application. 8. This Court also observes that the petitioner executed the relinquishment deed dated 23.05.2023 and the same was registered before the Sub-Registrar (Stamps), Jodhpur, whereby the petitioner and her sister relinquished all their rights pertaining to the land in question in the favour of the respondents, resulting into filing of the aforementioned withdrawal application, which was allowed vide the impugned order dated 30.05.2023. 8.1. This Court further observes that there is thumb impression of the petitioner on the withdrawal application and the Vakalatnama was also authorized by the petitioner, and even on 30.05.2022, when the withdrawal application was taken up by the learned BoR, the petitioner herself was present. For ready reference, the impugned order dated 30.05.2022 passed by the learned BoR is reproduced as hereunder:- ^^i=koyh is'k gqbZA odhy izkFkhZ Jh izdk'k HkkVh o odhy vizkFkhZ Jh iou pkSgku mi- gSA odhy izkFkhZ us ,d izkFkZuk i= e; odkyrukek ckcr~ izdj.k jkthukek gksus ls fuxjkuh foMªks Qjekus fnukad 30-05-23 is'k dj fuosnu fd;k fd mHk; i{kdkjku~ ds e/; vkilh jkthukek gksus ls os vc fuxjkuh dks vkxs ugha pykuk pkgrs gSA vr% fuxjkuh foMªks Qjek;h tkosA izkFkZuk i= U;k;fgr esa Lohdkj fd;k tkdj i{kdkjksa ds e/; le>kSrk gksus ls fuxjkuh vkxs ugha pyk;s tkus ds dkj.k foMªks djus dk vkns'k fn;k tkrk gSA i=koyh Qsly 'kqekj gksdj ckn dk;Zokgh nkf[ky nrj gSA vkns'k [kqys U;k;ky; esa lquk;k x;kA^^ 9. This Court also observes that once the settlement has been arrived at between the parties resulting into withdrawal of the revision petition, on the said count, the recalling application so filed by the petitioner, being not maintainable, was rightly rejected by the learned BoR vide the impugned judgment dated 15.09.2023. 10. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present petition. 11. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.