JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 09.09.2016 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer (for short ‘the Second Appellate Authority’) in Appeal No.2295/2012, allowing the second appeal of the appellant-respondent/plaintiff-Ramsahai Meena and set aside the order dated 05.03.2012 passed by the Court of Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur (for short ‘the First Appellate Authority’) in Appeal No.405/2010/223, dismissing the appeal filed by the respondent/plaintiff- Ramsahai Meena against the order dated 15.11.2010 passed by the Court of Assistant Collector, Jaipur City (I) [for short ‘the court below’], in Suit No.87/2010, whereby the application filed by the defendant No.1- Anandi Lal under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was allowed and the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff- Ramsahai Meena was dismissed being barred by law.

2. The brief facts of the case relevant for consideration of this Court are that the respondent/plaintiff- Ramsahai Meena filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction before the court below with the averements that he is in possession of the land in question since Samvat 2018 and the defendant No.1- Anandi Lal has wrongly got the land mutated in his name in the revenue record. The suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff-Ramsahai Meena with a prayer that he may be declared as a khatedar tenant of the land in question and further the mutation in the name of defendant No.1- Anandi Lal be declared illegal and further prayed for permanent injunction that the defendant No.1- Anandi Lal may not be made the payment of compensation in lieu of the acquisition of the land in question.

3. Defendant No.1- Anandi Lal filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC stating that the property in question has been acquired by the Rajasthan Housing Board under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act of 1894’) and the award has also been passed. As a consequence of the acquisition of the land, the land has vested with the Rajasthan Housing Board and the said land no more remains as an agricultural land, and therefore, the suit for declaration as a khatedari tenant is not maintainable. It was also stated that after acquisition of the land and passing of the award by the Competent Authority the respondent/plaintiff-Ramsahai Meena has a remedy of Reference before the Civil Court. It was prayed that the application filed by him under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC be allowed and the suit and the suit filed by the plaintiff/ respondent-Ramsahai Meena be dismissed being barred by law.

4. The Court below allowed the application filed by defendant No.1- Anandi Lal under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC vide its order dated 15.11.2010 and dismissed the suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction filed by the respondent/plaintiff-Ramsahai Meena.

5. The respondent/ plaintiff- Ramsahai Meena being aggrieved by the order dated 15.11.2010 passed by the Court below preferred an Appeal No.405/2010/223 under Section 223 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act of 1955’) before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court vide its order dated 05.03.2012 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order dated 15.11.2010 passed by the Court below.

6. Being aggrieved by the order dated 05.03.2012 passed by the First Appellate Court as well as the order dated 15.11.2010 passed by the Court below the respondent /plaintiff- Ramsahai Meena preferred second appeal No.2295/2012 under Section 224 of the Act of 1955 before the Second Appellate Court. The Second Appellate Court vide its order dated 09.09.2016 accepted the second appeal and quashed and set aside the order dated 05.03.2012 passed by the First Appellate Court as well as the order dated 15.11.2010 passed by the Court below and further remanded the matter to the court below for further trial proceedings.

7. Some relevant facts which also require consideration by this Court are that the Notification u