Hon'ble Dr. KOTHARI, J.—These two writ petitions and two revision petitions are directed against the order dated 24/8/2007 passed by learned trial court, whereby, the applications of the petitioners; Smt. Manisha & Smt. Meena Sharma under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was rejected by the learned trial court. The review petitions were filed by the defendant-petitioners against the said order and that too came to be rejected by the learned trial court by order dated 28/11/2007.

2. Being aggrieved of these two orders, two writ petitions and two revision petitions have been filed by the defendant petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Vinay Jain submitted that in view of bar under sub-section (10) of Section 90-B of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 that no civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain or decide any suit or proceeding questioning the order made under sub-section (5) passed by the Collector or the officer authorised by the State Government, the respondent-plaintiff, Rajendra Kumar Porwal, if he was aggrieved by the order passed in favour of the defendant petitioner on 20/7/2007 (Annex.2 in writ petition No. 3670/2008), then he could have filed an appeal under sub-section (7) of Section 90-B of the Act before the Divisional Commissioner.

4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the private respondent, Mr. J.K.Bhaiya as well as learned counsel appearing for the U.I.T. Bhilwara, Mr. Sandeep Shah submitted that the impugned orders are just and legal because the remedy by way of appeal to the Divisional Commissioner lies only when a person is aggrieved of the order made under sub-section (5) of Section 90-B of the Act. They further urged that sub-section (5) deals only with orders passed with reference to sub-section (1) of Section 90-B of the Act, where under, the State Government upon finding that the agricultural land has been put to non-agricultural use, terminates the rights and interests of such a person in the said land or holding and the land may be resumed by the State Government. Before resuming the land, the Collector or the officer authorised by the State Government has to hold an inquiry under sub-section (2) of Section 90-B of the Act. The proceedings have to be conducted summarily within a period of 60 days of the first date of hearing specified in the notice under sub-section (2) vide sub-section (4) of Section 90-B. Sub-section (5) of Section 90-B further provides that where, after hearing the parties, the Collector or the officer authorised by the State Government, is of the opinion that the land is liable to be resumed under sub-section (1), he shall after recording reasons in writing, order for termination of rights and interest of such person in the said land and order for resumption of the said land. A person aggrieved of such an order passed under subsection (5) may appeal to the Divisional Commissioner as per the provisions of sub-section (7) of Section 90-B of the Act, whose order shall be final and no civil court shall have the jurisdiction to entertain or decide any suit or proceedings questioning the order made under sub-section (5) of the Collector or authorised officer by the State Government vide sub-section (10). It is further submitted that in case of surrender of land by the tenant or holder of the land himself, such application can be filed under sub-section (3) of Section 90-B of the Act, which land also vests, free from all encumbrances, in the State Government as per sub-section (6) of Section 90-B of the Act. Remedy by way of appeal to Divisional Commissioner is not available, if a person is aggrieved by such order made in favour of land holder or tenant himself surrendering the land in question. If any person is so aggrieved of such surrender by the holder of the land himself and claims any competing right or his own right over the land in question, the remedy available to him is civil suit before the competent civil court and not an appeal under sub-section (7) of the Act to the D

Click Here to Read the rest of this document