HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5961/2015 Ram Lal s/o Laduram R/o Sambhar Lake, Tehsil Phulera, District Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer. 2. Mukat Lal S/o Mangi Lal R/o Sambhar Lake, Tehsil Phulera, District Jaipur. 3. State of Rajasthan through Tehsildar, Phulera District Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Sharma for Mr. Devendra Chauhan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Neeraj Batra, GC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 22/04/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 30.08.2012 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer (for short ‘the Board’) by which the order dated 14.10.2008 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer has been quashed and set-aside and the respondent No.2 has been granted liberty to file the document of family settlement, which is unregistered. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that unregistered family settlement is not admissible in evidence, hence the same cannot be allowed to be accepted on the record but overlooking this material aspect of the matter, the order impugned has been passed contrary to the proposal of law as laid down in this regard (2 of 3) [CW-5961/2015] by this Court in the case of Virendra Kumar & Others Versus Additional District Judge No.1, Alwar & others while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.591/2014. Learned counsel submits that, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. No one has put appearance on behalf of the respondent No.2 inspite of service. 4. Mr. Neeraj Batra, GC appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 & 3 submits that the State has nothing to do with the inter se controversy between the petitioner and the respondent No.2. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that a suit for declaration, injunction and partition with regard to land in question was submitted by the respondents against the petitioners before the Sub-Divisional Officer and during the pendency of the said suit, an application was submitted for taking the family settlement on the record. The Sub-Divisional Officer has rejected the said application on the ground that the aforesaid family settlement was not registered, hence the same is not admissible in evidence. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondent approached the Board by way of filing Revision Petition and the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer was quashed and set-aside with a direction to the Sub-Divisional Officer to allow the respondent to submit the said family settlement on the record. 7. No order has been passed about the admissibility of the aforesaid documents in terms of Sections 17(b) & 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. The judgment passed by this Court in the case of Virendra Kumar (supra), was not taken into account by the Board. (3 of 3) [CW-5961/2015] 8. In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the Sub-Divisional Officer to pass fresh order in light of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Virendra Kumar (supra). The aforesaid order was passed by the Tribunal way-back in the month of August, 2012, the suit might have been decided. In case, the suit is still lying pending, appropriate orders be passed on the application submitted by the respondent in light of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Virendra Kumar (supra). 9. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/54