ORAL ORDER

1. This second appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the appellant – original plaintiffs, arises against the impugned judgment and decree dated 14.10.2023 passed by the learned 8th Additional District Judge, Kutch – Bhuj in Regular Civil Appeal No.19 of 2022, confirming the judgment and decree dated 05.02.2022 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kutch – Bhuj in Regular Civil Suit No. 241 of 2010 dismissing the suit.

2. The short facts of the present case are as under :

2.1 The plaintiffs have filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No.241 of 2010 before the learned trial Court against the order dated 25.02.2004 passed by the learned Mamlatdar, Bhuj – Kutch in Tenancy Case No.237 of 2003, whereby the learned Mamlatdar has rejected the claim of the plaintiffs as tenant qua the lands being revenue Survey No.93/2 (Old revenue Survey No.22) and revenue Survey No.94 of village :

Moti Reladi.

2.2 After the considering the rival contentions of the parties as well as evidence – documentary and oral on record, the learned trial Court has rejected the suit mainly on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to try such suit.

2.3 Being aggrieved, the plaintiffs have filed an appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No.19 of 2022, which is also dismissed by the learned appellate Court below on merit and thereby confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court.

2.4 It is these judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below which are challenged by the appellants – original plaintiffs before this Court in this second appeal.

3. Heard learned advocates.

3.1 Learned advocate Mr. A.A. Jabuavala for the appellants has submitted that the learned Courts have not properly considered the real controversy between the parties. He has further submitted that the learned appellate Court below has not appreciated the substantial questions of law and rejected the appeal mechanically. He has also submitted that looking to the nature of the prayers made in the suit for declaration, the learned trial Court has jurisdiction and therefore, the suit is maintainable. He has submitted that both the learned Courts below have rejected the proceeding mainly on the ground of jurisdiction.

3.2 He has suggested the following substantial questions of law for determination of this Court.

(i) Does trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit seeking declaration of ownership on the basis of undisputed possession for long passage of time ?

(ii) Can trial Court not entertain the suit where there are clear pleadings of ownership of the dispute property ?

(iii) Can a suit be barred just because of Government authority passed an order under other law and granted to land to other person ?

3.3 He has submitted that this appeal may be allowed.

4.1 Per contra, learned AGP Mr. Aditya Jadeja for the respondent – State Authority has submitted that these are the revenue proceedings and therefore, the learned civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the same as there is an alternative remedy available with the plaintiffs. He has further submitted that the plaintiffs are trying to get benefit of similar and fictitious name like defendant. He has submitted that

5.1 I have heard rival submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties. I have considered the documents available on record. I have perused the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below. From the record, it transpires that there is no jurisdiction to Civil Court to decide the possession and ownership under the law of agricultural tenancy. The suit is barred by law of Section 124 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area) Act, 1958. Section 124 of the Act reads as under :

“124.(1) No civil court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act, required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the [mamlatdar] or Tribunal a manager [the Collector