A Revenue Authority cannot set aside an order based on alleged fraud in a compromise petition; only a Civil Court has jurisdiction.

The petitioners claim ownership of 5.37 acres of land in Village Atimi, purchased by the late Bibhuti Bhushan Tiwary and recorded in his name in the Khatiyan and Register-II

Respondent No. 4, Shyam Narayan Tiwary, allegedly obtained an order in Revision Case No. 308/1999 on 24.03.2000 from the Deputy Director of Consolidation based on a forged compromise petition that included the petitioners' land

In 2017, Bibhuti Bhushan Tiwary filed Revision Case No. 218/2017 to recall the 2000 order, which the Joint Director of Consolidation allowed on 20.05.2019, finding the compromise forged

Respondent No. 4 challenged this recall before the Bihar Land Tribunal (BLT) in Case No. 508/2019. The BLT set aside the Joint Director's order, leading the petitioners to approach the High Court

1. Whether a revenue/consolidation authority has the jurisdiction to set aside an order passed on the basis of an allegedly forged compromise petition

2. Whether the petitioners’ challenge to the compromise petition in Revision Case No. 308/1999 was maintainable before a consolidation authority

Order XXIII, Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which bars a suit to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful

The principle that while a suit to set aside a decree on the ground of fraud is maintainable, such adjudication is the exclusive domain of a competent Civil Court, even regarding proceedings under special statutes

The Court observed that the BLT rightly held that a decree or order passed on a compromise—even if alleged to be forged—cannot be ignored or set aside by a revenue authority

Upon perusing the disputed compromise petition from Revision Case No. 308/1999, the Court noted that the land in question was mentioned only as a reference to a previous family partition and was not the primary subject of that specific revision

The Court reasoned that since the petitioners were essentially challenging the validity of a partition and a compromise they claimed was fraudulent, the Joint Director of Consolidation lacked the jurisdiction to recall the earlier order

Under Order XXIII Rule 3-A CPC, such grievances must be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court to determine the factual truth of the fraud

The Court concluded that the consolidation authorities have no power to set aside orders based on allegedly forged compromises; the petitioners’ proper remedy is to file a suit before a competent Civil Court to declare the partition or compromise void due to fraud