Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court held that a party cannot later challenge the withdrawal of a revenue suit merely because the facts surrounding the withdrawal are disputed, when the party had signed the withdrawal application and the competent revenue authorities had found the withdrawal to be voluntary.
A Division Bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Praveer Bhatnagar dismissed the DB Special Appeal filed by the legal heirs of Narbada Bai.
Dispute Was Over Share in Ancestral Agricultural Land
The case concerned agricultural land in Nimbahera, Chittorgarh, involving Khata No. 472 and Arazi Nos. 1422 and 1431.
Narbada Bai claimed a share in the ancestral property of her father, Heeralaal.
According to her heirs, after Heeralaal’s death, the revenue records were mutated only in favour of his three sons, allegedly depriving Narbada Bai of her lawful share.
She had therefore filed Revenue Suit No. 102/2019 under Sections 53, 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, seeking declaration of her rights, partition of the land and permanent injunction.
Heirs Later Claimed Signatures Were Misused
Narbada Bai died on November 22, 2023, after which her legal representatives were brought on record.
Her heirs later alleged that their signatures had been obtained in connection with efforts to settle family matters.
They claimed that they subsequently discovered that the same signatures had been used to file an application seeking withdrawal of Revenue Suit No. 102/2019.
They argued that they had never voluntarily agreed to withdraw the case and that their signatures were allegedly obtained by providing incorrect information.
However, the Assistant Collector, Nimbahera, accepted the withdrawal application on December 18, 2023, and treated the suit as withdrawn.
Revenue Authorities and Single Bench Had Upheld Withdrawal
The withdrawal order was challenged before the revenue appellate authorities and the Board of Revenue, but the challenges failed.
The matter then reached the Rajasthan High Court. On July 6, 2026, the Single Bench also upheld the orders of the revenue authorities.
The legal heirs subsequently filed the present DB Special Appeal before the Division Bench.
Court Finds No Proof of Fraud, Coercion or Illegality
The appellants argued that the revenue authority should have verified whether the withdrawal was genuinely voluntary.
They also argued that the concerned party’s statement should have been recorded before accepting the withdrawal application.
The Division Bench examined the record but found no material establishing fraud, coercion, pressure or procedural illegality.
The Court noted that the allegations were mainly based on disputed facts which had already been examined by the competent revenue authorities.
Mere Claim of Being Misled Cannot Undo Signed Withdrawal
The High Court made it clear that simply claiming later that signatures were obtained after giving incorrect information is not sufficient to invalidate a withdrawal.
The Bench found that the record did not establish that the withdrawal was involuntary.
It also noted circumstances indicating that the appellants were aware of the proceedings and the settlement concerning the disputed property.
Court Relies on Supreme Court’s Kartar Singh Judgment
The Division Bench also considered the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Kartar Singh v. B.O.R. & Ors.
The Court noted that where the record shows that a party knowingly signed and submitted an application to withdraw a case, a later attempt to present a different version of events cannot, by itself, invalidate the withdrawal.
The High Court found the same principle applicable in the present matter.
No Ground to Interfere With Compromise Decree
The appellants had also challenged a compromise decree dated August 28, 2025, claiming that they had not consented to the settlement.
The High Court, however, found no jurisdictional error, perversity or violation of natural justice in the decree.
Therefore, the Court found no basis to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Rajasthan HC Dismisses DB Special Appeal
The Division Bench concluded that there was no legal defect in the orders upholding the withdrawal of the revenue suit or in the compromise decree.
Finding the appeal without merit, Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Praveer Bhatnagar dismissed the DB Special Appeal.