The maintainability of a suit under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 after the land has been acquired and compensation paid is a question of fact that needs to be determined through evidence.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Mehta, J. - The petitioner Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur has preferred the present writ petition questioning the legality of the order dated 20.12.2017, passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as "the Board"), vide which its appeal under Section 225 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1955"), against the order dated 30.09.2014, passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority has been dismissed.

2. The facts in brief, relevant for the present purposes, are that the plaintiffs (respondents herein) filed a suit for declaration and injunction, in relation to their Khatedari rights of the contentious land.

3. In the suit aforesaid, after the petitioner Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur had filed its reply, the issues were framed, whereafter the petitioner (UIT) filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and prayed that since the land had been acquired and due compensation paid, the suit proceedings deserved to be terminated, as the land had lost its nature of being agricultural land.

4. Petitioner'S aforesaid application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure came to be allowed by the learned Trial Court vide its order dated 20.05.2013 and the plaint was returned/rejected.

5. Against the above order, the respondents preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, who was pleased to allow the same vide its order dated 30.09.2014, inter alia, observing that the Trial Court has erred in rejecting/returning the plaint. While accepting the appeal, the learned Revenue Appellate Authority observed that since the issues have already been framed, it was required of the Trial Court to decide the suit issuewise, instead of rejecting the same in exercise of power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code.

6. The petitioner Trust, took up the matter before the Board by way of filing an appeal under Section 225 of the Act of 1955, which was rejected by the Board vide order impugned dated 20.12.2017 and the view taken by the Appellate Court was affirmed.

7. Feeling aggrieved with the order dated 20.12.2017, passed by the Board, so also the order dated 30.09.2014, passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, the petitioner Urban Improvement Trust has preferred the present writ petition.

8. Mr. A.K. Rajvanshy, learned counsel for the petitioner-Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur submitted that the land in question had already been acquired by the Urban Improvement Trust and the compensation with respect to such land has since been paid to the Devstahn Department and, the land has therefore lost its nature of being an agricultural land. He argued that such being the position, suit under the provisions of the Act of 1955 is/was not maintainable.

9. He argued that since the very maintainability of the suit was in question, the learned Trial Court was justified in returning/rejecting the plaint in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code and the Courts below have, therefore, erred in holding that the suit needs to be decided issue-wise.

10. In support of the contention aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in I.T.C. Ltd. Vs. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and Ors., (1998) AIR SC 634 to buttress his submissions that it cannot be held, as the matter of rule, that once issues have been framed, a plaint cannot be returned in exercise of power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

11. Another judgment in the case of Ganpat Lal and Ors. Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board, Jodhpur and Ors., (2004) 2 RLW 1208 Raj , rendered by this Court was also cited to lend support to his argument that once the land has been acquired, the provisions of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 do not apply.

12. Mr. Bhavit Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, while supporting the orders passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board, argued that after