JUDGMENT :

J.J. MUNIR, J.

1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The plaintiff-appellant's suit has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

2. How could a man go without a remedy against a summary determination of his right to property, with no Court of determinative jurisdiction hearing him, is a question of the most fundamental importance. It is this essential issue involved in the appeal, which led this Court to admit this appeal to hearing on two substantial questions of law formulated on one day and then add one more before hearing commenced. The following substantial questions of law are involved in this appeal:

1. Whether in view of the law laid down by this Court in Rajendra Singh vs. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (4) ADJ 37, holding that the remedy against an order of eviction under Section 122-B U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act is a suit, the present suit is maintainable before the Civil Court?

2. Whether in a case where the Civil Court finds that the suit is not cognizable by it but the Revenue Court, the appropriate order to make is one for return of the plaint instead of dismissal of the suit?

3. Whether in a case where an order of eviction passed under Section 122-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is challenged in revision under Section 122-B(4-A) a suit before the court of competent jurisdiction under Section 122-B(4-D) would be barred under Section 122-B (4-E) of the Act?

3. The facts giving rise to this appeal are these: On 03.01.1993, according to the plaintiff-appellant, Ishlam son of Chand Khan (for short, 'the plaintiff', unless the context requires a different reference), the Halqa Lekhpal submitted a bogus report to the Tehsildar, Bah saying that the plaintiff's father, Chand Khan (now deceased) had illegally occupied plot No. 119/1 (Minjumla), admeasuring 1 bigha 10 biswa, situate at Village Derakh, Pargana Bah, District Agra. The Tehsildar, Bah drew proceedings against the plaintiff's father under Section 122-B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short, 'the Act') and issued notice to him on 09.01.1993, asking him to show cause why an order of eviction etc. be not made. The plaintiff's father submitted his objections before the Tehsildar on 07.01.1994. The defence taken was that the land aforesaid was his ancestral property, a bhumidhari that had come to his hands through his father. The plaintiff was in possession of the land, subject matter of the notice, as the bhumidhar thereof and that he had not encroached any land of the Gaon Sabha.

4. On 28.08.1995, the Halqa Lekhpal, who had made the report alleging encroachment of Gaon Sabha land by the plaintiff's father, testified before the Tehsildar, Bah in proceedings under Section 122-B of the Act. The Tehsildar on 26.06.1997 proceeded to pass an order, directing eviction of the plaintiff's father from plot No. 119/2, whereas the notice to show cause had been issued vis-a-vis plot No. 119/1. The plaintiff's father challenged the order of the Tehsildar dated 26.06.1997 in revision carried to the Collector of Agra under Section 122-B (4A) of the Act. The Additional Collector (Administration), Agra, before whom the revision came up, dismissed it by an order dated 14.06.2001. According to the plaintiff, the order of eviction and its affirmation in revision are absolutely illegal and beyond jurisdiction. The plaintiff's father never encroached any land of the Gaon Sabha. The notice under Section 122-B (2) of the Act was based on incorrect facts and proceedings drawn on its basis were void.

5. The plaintiff asserted that his father and his co-sharers were in possession of the land, subject matter of the eviction proceedings. The Lekhpal's report is not proved by the evidence on record and the order of the Tehsildar/Assistant Collector, Bah, District Agra, ordering the plaintiff's eviction and obliging him to pay compensation is manifestly illegal and without basis. The plaintiff's fat