1. Admit, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties taken up for hearing forthwith.

2. The revisionary jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 24/8/2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ichalkaranji by which order the Trial Court has decided the preliminary issue by holding that it has the jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit.

3. The Applicants herein are the original Defendant Nos.10, 11, 13 and 15 to the suit in question being Regular Civil Suit No.247 of 2005. In the context of the challenge which has been raised in the above Civil Revision Application it would be apposite to refer to the reliefs claimed in the said suit.

"HIND”"

English translation of which is as under:-

12) Plaintiff therefore prays that:-

(a) To declare that the Plaintiff become owner by adverse possession;

(b) Order dated 29.11.2001 vide Desk 1512 Rehabilitation RR 3867/2001 Vashi-916/ 2001, Letter of Tahasildar Dt. 7/12/2001 vide S.B.N. 169/2001, remark of circle officer, Hupari dt. 10.12.2001 and award No.LAQ/10/4/1983 dated 17.7.1984 and possession receipt dated 23.10.1985 all be declared illega, void ab inition, hollow and not acted upon.

(c) In the alternative, if this Court comes to a conclusion that the acquisition is legal and valid, then issue a declaration that the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are not entitled to acquire the Plaintiff's land, since the land in Jangamwadi in Gat No.35, Area 5 H. 20 ares, is already acquired for rehabilitation in the year 1984;

(d) To restrain by an injunction to Defendant No.5 and others acting on his behalf to disturb the Plaintiff's possession and enjoyment in the suit property on the basis of the order referred in para 12 (b).

The subject matter of the suit is the land bearing Gat No.572 admeasuring 3 Hectors and 28 Ares. The Plaintiffs claim to be in possession of the said land. In the plaint the acquisition which has taken place under the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act 1986 (herein after referred to as “the said Act”) has been referred to, and in Paragraph 3B the lands have been allotted by the District Rehabilitation Officer to the project affected persons has been mentioned. The plaint also contains an averment that the Respondents are seeking to intervene in the Plaintiffs' peaceful possession of the suit property. The prayer clauses indicate that by prayer clause (b) the Plaintiffs have sought declaration that the letters dated 29/11/2001, 7/12/2001, Award dated 17/7/1984 and the possession receipt dated 23/10/1985 are all illegal, void abinitio, hollow, bogus and not acted upon. By way of prayer clause (c) it has been alternatively prayed that in the event the Trial Court comes to a conclusion that the acquisition is legal then it be declared that in view of the lands from Gat No. 35 admeasuring 5 Hectors and 20 Ares being already acquired, the authorities are not entitled to acquire further lands from the Plaintiffs. By prayer clause (d) injunction is sought that the Defendant No.5 should not interfered with the Plaintiffs' possession on the basis of the letters and award which have been referred to in prayer clause (b).

4. A reading of the said prayer clauses therefore indicates that the entire substratum of the suit is based on the acquisition of the Plaintiffs lands from Gat No.572. It is in the said context that the Applicants above named i.e. the Defendant Nos.10, 11, 13 and 15 applied for framing of a preliminary issue as regards the maintainability of the suit. The said applications were Exhibits 85 and 96. Pursuant to the applications, the preliminary issue to the following effect has been framed:-

“Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit as per Sections 22 and 24 of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986?

5. The Trial Court adjudicated upon the said preliminary issue and has by the impugned order dated 24/8/2012 ruled that it has the jurisdiction