The court established that possession findings by a Civil Court do not preclude the Revenue Court from determining tenancy rights under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant-original petitioner to challenge the order dated 21.09.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No.9449/2021.

2. This case has a chequered history.

3. In brief, the facts are that the appellant-original petitioner claims to be in possession of and tenant of the government land bearing Khasra No.3 of Village Dhandh, near Jhalamand Circle, Jodhpur. The appellant-petitioner has filed a civil suit before the competent Civil Court seeking protection against eviction with respect to two portions of the land in Khasra No.3 as well as Khasra No. 11. The Civil Court refused to grant injunction in respect of land bearing Khasra No.3 primarily on the ground that the appellant-petitioner failed to prove the possession thereof. The order passed by the Civil Court became final when the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

4. Independently, the appellant-petitioner instituted a revenue suit before the Revenue Court under Section 88 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ('Tenancy Act' for short) claiming possession as well as tenancy rights. In such proceedings, the appellant-petitioner also prayed for interim injunction. Since the application for interim injunction was not being decided promptly and in the meantime, the Jodhpur Development Authority (JDA), to which the land in question was allotted by the government, was proceeding with its proposal for auctioning the land, the appellant-petitioner approached the Revenue Court by filing a revision petition for necessary protection. In such revision petition, the Revenue Board passed an order dated 07.04.2021 and provided that the Collector, Jodhpur would decide the proceedings instituted by the appellant-petitioner against the government within three months and till then the auction of the land shall not be carried out. The JDA was not heard before this order was passed by the Revenue Board and therefore, the JDA applied to the Revenue Board for recalling the order. The Revenue Board thereupon passed an order dated 06.07.2021 and recalled the previous order for hearing the suit of the appellant-petitioner within time frame and granting protection thereunder. This order, the petitioner has challenged in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge on 26.07.2021 stayed the e-auction proceedings initiated by the JDA in relation to land bearing Khasra No.3. By further order dated 16.08.2021, the learned Single Judge also prevented the JDA from carrying out the ceremony for laying the foundation for construction of the park on the land in question.

5. The JDA thereupon moved an application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacating the interim orders, on which the learned Single Judge passed the impugned order. After taking note of the proceedings before the Civil Court, the learned Single Judge formed the opinion that the application for vacation of interim relief filed by the JDA deserves to be allowed on the ground that the Civil Court had recorded a finding that the appellant-petitioner was not having lawful possession or title over the land in question and secondly, the land vests in JDA. It is this order that the original petitioner has challenged in this appeal.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties for final disposal of the appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant-original petitioner submitted that the finding of the Civil Court must be confined to the question of possession of the petitioner and not her title. Such question has to be gone into by the Collector in the Revenue Suit filed by the appellant-petitioner under the Tenancy Act. He further submitted that if the JDA is allowed to carry out the auction and allot land to the successful bidders, third party rights would be created.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the JDA vehemently opposed the appeal and contended that the Civil Court has already declared that the appellant-petitioner was not in possession of the land in q