# Smt. Vimla Devi v. Commissioner Vindhyachal Division Mirzapur & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 7 ILRA 309
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-03-05
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 25519 of 2016
- **Bench:** Ashwani Kumar Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-vimla-devi-v-commissioner-vindhyachal-division-mirzapur-ors-45885
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901
- Section 202 - Object and Binding effect of
compromise/family settlement - - Correction of
error or omission - courts would lean in favour
of family settlement unless it is unfair, tainted
by fraud or lacks bona fide - binding effect of
compromise cannot be avoided in proceedings
for correction of records on the ground that
devolution of estate is contrary to course
contemplated in law - No specific case of error
or omission - appellate court and revisional
court - correctly rejected the application filed by
the present petitioner under Section 202 of the
L.R. Act, 1901 - 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 .(Para-13,15,18)

Parties to dispute - three real sisters - inherited
agricultural land and Abadi from their mother -
initially agreed for the property to be settled in a
manner such that each party got a fair share -
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 (Petitioner), later, led to filing of
an application for correction in the revenue
records,
notwithstanding
the
compromise,
leading to filing of the present writ petition.
(Para-1)

HELD:- 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. (Para-17)

Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of cases cited: -

## Text

7 All. Smt. Vimla Devi Vs. Commissioner Vindhyachal Division Mirzapur & Ors.
309
the award impugned, the interim order
passed here and also the totality of
circumstances obtaining.

28. In the result, this petition succeeds
and is allowed. The impugned award dated
16.02.1995 (published on 20.06.1995)
passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour
Court, Allahabad in Adjudication Case No.
4 of 1989, is hereby quashed. The State
Government shall make reference afresh,
within three months next, to the competent
Labour Court bearing in mind what has
been said in this judgment. All monies
received by the workman in terms of the
interim order of this Court, passed in this
petition, shall, however, not be recovered
from him. Costs easy.
----------
(2020)07ILR A309
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.03.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.

Writ C No. 25519 of 2016

Smt. Vimla Devi ...Petitioner
Versus

Commissioner
Vindhyachal
Division
Mirzapur & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rajesh Kumar Dubey, Sr Narendra Deo
Upahdayay, Sri Santosh Kumar Tiwari, Sri
Vinay Bhushan Upadhyay, Sri Virandra
Singh.

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Bhoop Nath Yadav, Sri H.K
Asthana, Sri Om Singh Rathaur, Sri Ram
Babu Yadav

A. Civil Law - U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901
- Section 202 - Object and Binding effect of
compromise/family settlement - - Correction of
error or omission - courts would lean in favour
of family settlement unless it is unfair, tainted
by fraud or lacks bona fide - binding effect of
compromise cannot be avoided in proceedings
for correction of records on the ground that
devolution of estate is contrary to course
contemplated in law - No specific case of error
or omission - appellate court and revisional
court - correctly rejected the application filed by
the present petitioner under Section 202 of the
L.R. Act, 1901 - 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 .(Para-13,15,18)

Parties to dispute - three real sisters - inherited
agricultural land and Abadi from their mother -
initially agreed for the property to be settled in a
manner such that each party got a fair share -
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 (Petitioner), later, led to filing of
an application for correction in the revenue
records,
notwithstanding
the
compromise,
leading to filing of the present writ petition.
(Para-1)

HELD:- 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. (Para-17)

Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of cases cited: -

1. Arjan Singh Vs Punit Ahluwalia & ors. (2009)
107 RD 259

2. Ram Abhilakh & ors. Vs D.D. C. & ors. (2017)
135 RD 605

3.
Kale
&
ors.
Vs
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation, AIR (1976) SC 807
310 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Misha, J.)

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. 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 abovenoted
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
7 All. Smt. Vimla Devi Vs. Commissioner Vindhyachal Division Mirzapur & Ors.
311
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). 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 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
312 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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. 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. The gift has been executed
merely 09 days prior to death of the
7 All. Smt. Vimla Devi Vs. Commissioner Vindhyachal Division Mirzapur & Ors.
313
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. 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
314 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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. 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 savingits honour.

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
7 All. Smt. Vimla Devi Vs. Commissioner Vindhyachal Division Mirzapur & Ors.
315
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."
316 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

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. 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
abovenoted 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 ugh 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 iz;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 rRdze esa foeyk nsoh us U;k;ky;
Jheku th le{k Loa; mifLFkr vkdj tk0 fu0
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 31-012012 gh ikfjr gqvk FkkA fdUrq vc foeyk nsoh o
mlds ifr 'kf'kdkUr flag us iqu% nqfu;koh ykyp
esa iMdj orZeku izkFkZuk i= U;k;ky; Jheku~th
le{k izLrqr 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
abovenoted 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
7 All. Smt. Vimla Devi Vs. Commissioner Vindhyachal Division Mirzapur & Ors.
317
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. 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
318 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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.
----------
(2020)07ILR A318
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.06.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, J.
THE HON'BLE RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

Writ C No. 39872 of 2018

Brij Kumar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Bidhan Chandra Rai, Sri M.C. Chaturvedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Krishna Mohan Asthana, Sri
Satish Chaturvedi, Sri Mohanji Srivastava,
Mrs. S.Rathi

A. Civil Law - Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Act, 1976(Principal act) -
Urban land (Ceiling and Regulation
Repeal) Act 1999 - Section 3 ,Section 4,
Section 7, Section 8, Section 9, Section
10 - Possession of surplus land - - kind of
possession contemplated u/s 3 & 4 of the
Repeal Act, 1999 - actual physical possession
of the surplus land - not a mere paper
possession - neither having been delivered to
the Government voluntarily - nor taken
forcefully by the Government
- if the
possession of the petitioner's land which was
declared surplus land stood vested in the
State Government u/s 10 (3) of the principal
Act was not taken and no proceedings u/s 11,
12, 13 and 14 of the principal Act were
pending on the date of coming into force of
the Repeal Act, 1999 - petitioner entitled to
the benefit of the Repeal Act, 1999.(Para28,35)

Petitioner's plot declared surplus under the
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,
1976 - interim order -petitioner will not be
dispossessed - meantime - Principal Act
repealed - Division Bench - abated the
proceedings
under
the
principal
Act
-
authorities found that petitioner is not in
physical possession - writ petition - disposed
of - no consequential steps were taken by the
respondents on the representation of the
petitioner . (Para-3)

HELD:- Actual physical possession of the
petitioner's surplus land was never taken by
the State Government from the petitioner and
the petitioner stood in possession of the land
in question on the date of the coming into
force of the Repeal Act, 1999 - direction
issued to the authorites to expunge the name
of respondent-State from the revenue record
and to restore that of the petitioner who is
the owner of the land in question. (Para37,39)

Petition allowed. (E-7)

List of cases cited: -

1. Devaki Nandan Prasad Vs St. of Bihar
(1983) Law Suit SC 129

2. St. of U.P. Vs Hari Ram (2013) 4 SCC 280

3. Lalla Vs. St. of U.P. (2014) 9 ADJ 524

(Delivered by Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana, J.)

1. Heard Sri B.C. Rai, learned counsel
for the petitioner, Sri M.C. Chaturvedi,
learned Additional Advocate General, U.P.
assisted by Sri Mohanji Srivastava, learned