1. By this Civil Revision Application, filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Applicants are challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 17th August 2017 passed by the 6th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur, in Regular Civil Suit No.791 of 2016, thereby holding that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the said Suit.

2. The Applicants herein are the Original Defendants. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 have filed this Suit before the Trial Court contending, inter alia, that their lands were acquired for the purpose of “Tulsi Project” in the year 1975. Therefore, they became the “project affected persons” and hence, as per the order dated 4th November 2011, the Collector has handed over them the possession of the land admeasuring 40 R, out of New Gat No.829, admeasuring 71 R, situate at Village Dhamod, Taluka Radhanagari, District Kolhapur. Accordingly, Respondent No.1 has paid purchase price of the said land by Challan dated 4th November 2011 and has, thus, became the owner of the suit land. His name was also mutated in 'Record of Rights' by Mutation Entry No.2813 dated 3rd March 2011. However, subsequent thereto, the Project Authority, namely, the Collector, Kolhapur, has deleted the name of Respondent No.1 to the extent of the land admeasuring 20 R and allotted the said land to the Applicants. Being aggrieved thereby, Respondent Nos.1 to 3 approached the Trial Court for a declaration that, this order of the Collector dated 14th July 2016 is totally null, void ab-initio and without jurisdiction. As a consequential relief, Respondent Nos.1 to 3 have also claimed injunction, restraining the Applicants herein from causing obstruction to their possession in the suit land and also for deleting name of Respondent No.1 from the 'Record of Rights'.

3. The Applicants herein have appeared in the Trial Court and resisted the said Suit by filing written statement at 'Exhibit-48', contending, inter alia, that, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the Suit, as it is barred in view of Section 24 of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999, (for short, “Rehabilitation Act”).

4. Along with the written statement, the Applicants also preferred an application at “Exhibit-35” for framing preliminary issue as to the jurisdiction of the Trial Court, under Section 9A of the CPC.

5. Accordingly, the Trial Court framed such preliminary issue and allowed the parties to lead their evidence on this preliminary issue. The Applicants did not adduce any oral evidence; however, Respondent No.1 examined himself and also led the evidence of one witness by name Shivaji to prove his possession over the suit land.

6. On the basis of this oral and other documentary evidence and in the light of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for both the parties before it, the Trial Court was pleased to hold that, Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the dispute. Being aggrieved thereby, this Revision Application is preferred.

7. In this Revision Application, I have heard Mr. Koregave, learned counsel for the Applicants, and Mr. Mhatugade, learned counsel for the Respondents. Both of them have relied upon the landmark decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dhulabhai Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1968 DGLS (SC) 95.

8. According to learned counsel for the Applicants, in view of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dhulabhai (Supra) and also the provisions of Section 24 of the Rehabilitation Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is expressly barred and hence, the Trial Court has committed an error in holding that, it has jurisdiction. The impugned order, therefore, passed by the Trial Court is required to be quashed and set aside.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondents, by relying upon the same Judgment, has submitted that, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court cannot be excluded, when the provisions of the particular Act had not be