KAN SINGH, J.—-This is a revision application by the State of Rajasthan and is directed against an order of the Senior Civil Judge, Ganganagar, whereby in deciding one of the several issues in a suit pending before him, he held that the suit was triable by a civil court and not by a revenue court. The revision application arises under the following circumstances:

On 2-1-65 Narain respondent brought a suit against the State of Rajasthan, Union of India and General Manager, Central Mechanised Farm, Suratgarh for the possession of an agricultural land measuring 116-1/2 bighas. It was averred in the plaint that the plaintiff was a Maurisidar of the suit land and the land was granted to the ancestors of the plaintiff by the former Bikaner State. Plaintiffs case was that the last holder of this land before him was his adoptive father Khinya Ram. Khinya Ram was survived by his widow Mst. Kastoori who adopted the plaintiff on 10-4-45. Thereafter the plaintiff had enjoyed this land and was cultivating it all along. According to him, the State of Rajasthan unlawfulyl entered upon the land sometime in the year 1957 and made this land a part of the Suratgarh farm and has handed over its possession to the Union of India. Respondent No. 3, General Manager, Mechanised Farm Suratgarh, took possession of the land on behalf of the Union of India. As, according to the plaintiff, no acquisition proceedings under the law were taken relating to this land and he was never paid any compensation, the deprivation of the plaintiffs possession by the respondents over the land in question was contrary to law. Thereafter, the plaintiff made several representations to the respondents, but without any success. At one time, however, some land was given to him on an adhoc basis purporting to be in exchange for the land taken away from him, but the plaintiff proceeded to say, that that land too was taken back from him on 10 6-63. The plaintiff also maintained that his adoptive mother Mst. Kastoori applied for giving her land in exchange, but this, according to the plaintiff, was an unauthorised act on her part and the respondents would not be discharging of their liability towards the plaintiff even if any land were given to Mst. Kastoori.

2. The respondents filed a written statement and on the basis thereof learned Senior Civil Judge framed a number of issues. The defendant raised a plea that the suit was exclusively triable by a revenue court and was, therefore, not triable by the Senior Civil Judge. This gave rise to issue No. 4. The learned Senior Civil Judge heard arguments on this issue and decided that he had jurisdiction to try the suit. Learned Senior Civil Judge observed that as according to the plaint there appeared to be infringement of the fundamental right of the plaintiff the suit could lie only in the civil court as the action of the executive could not properly be impugned before a limb of the executive. In other words, according to the learned Senior Civil Judge, the revenue courts were limbs of the executive and were, therefore, not competent to try the matter as it related to the infringement of the fundamental rights of the plaintiff. When it was urged before the learned Senior Civil Judge that the suit was covered by sec. 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, hereinafter to be referred as the "Act", he observed that that section related to a suit against a trespasser and as the State could not be held to be a trespasser, sec. 183 of the Act was not attracted in the matter.

3. I am afraid, learned Senior Civil Judge has mis-directed himself completely. It is true, the averments of the plaintiff show that there was, according to the plaintiff, infringement of his fundamental right to hold the property when the respondents dispossessed him without the authority of law, but from this it does not follow that the revenue courts are precluded from trying the suit if, according to law, such a suit is triable by them. The learned Senior Civil Judge

Click Here to Read the rest of this document