Jamna vs Civil Judge (J.D.)Sheoganj & Ors on 7 July, 2008

        Revision - 154/2008 - Jamna Vs. Hemaram & Anr.    Order dt.7.7.08

                                        1/2


         S.B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.154/2008
                  Jamna Vs. Hemaram & Anr.

Date of order                       :              7th July, 2008

                                  PRESENT

          HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

Mr. Rajesh Parihar for the petitioner.

                                    ---------

1.           This revision petition is directed against the order dated

20.2.2008 whereby the learned trial court has decided the issue of

jurisdiction in favour of the plaintiff.



2.           The defendant has approached this Court by way of

present revision petition on the ground that from the perusal of the

impugned order, it is clear that the land in question of khasra No.47

min/2001 was a Government agricultural land and was not converted

into abadi land and, therefore, the civil Court has no jurisdiction but

only Revenue Court could entertain such suit. The suit was filed for

permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendant for

removal of encroachment from the public way.



3.           The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the

following judgments has contended that from the documents on

record before the learned trial court Exhibit A/1 to A/8 and from the

findings in the impugned order itself, it was clear that the land in

question was not abadi land but was agricultural land, therefore, the

civil Court has no jurisdiction. He relies upon the judgments in
             Revision - 154/2008 - Jamna Vs. Hemaram & Anr.   Order dt.7.7.08

                                          2/2


Bhenru Lal Vs. Arjun Lal & Ors. - 1997 DNJ (Raj.) 338, Narendra

& Ors. Vs. Mahaveer (deceased) thorugh Lrs. - 2007 WLC 399 &

State of Rajasthan Vs. Kanaram - 1998 DNJ (Raj.) 616.



3.               I have heard learned counsel and perused the record.

4.               The learned trial court while deciding the issue of

jurisdiction has clearly found that both the plaintiff and defendants

had encroached upon the Government agricultural land and there was

approximately 100 houses made on the said land but no pattas were

issued in their favour. However, the dispute between the parties

pertains to injunction against "Kachha Nala" made by the defendant

and encroachment on the public way. This dispute being unrelated to

the nature of land can be decided by the Civil Court and, therefore,

the learned trial court does not appear to have committed any error in

deciding the issue of jurisdiction.

5.               The revision petition is found to be devoid of merit and

the same is, therefore, dismissed in limine. A copy of this order be

sent to the respondents.

                                                [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J.

item No.5
babulal/-