ZAHID HUSSAIN Vs. SHYAMA MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal against the appellate judgment of the Commissioner Kota dated 19. 9. 59 upholding the original order of the Assistant Collector, Kota dated 8. 9. 58 is bound to succeed for the obvious reason that both the lower courts have failed to appreciate the real nature of the suit. The appellant claiming himself to be the sub-tenant of the disputed land prayed for a permanent injunction and declaratory relief. The lower courts held that as the land in dispute was the evacuee property it was beyond their jurisdiction to try the suit. Reliance in this connection was placed on a decision of the Board dated 3rd July, 1957. Mangla Versus Tehsildar-Kishangarh reported in 1957 R. R. D. 260, In that case the ques-tion related to the cancellation and granting fresh leases of agricultural land which were eva-cuee property, in the capacity of the Management Officer of the Pool Property. Sec. 14, 15 and 16 of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 1955 were examined in that connection and it was held that the land in dispute being evacuee property stood included in the Compensation Pool the management of which vested in the Central Government which was authorised to appoint such officers as it deemed fit. The action of the Teh-sildar in that case was deemed to have been within the meaning of that Act in the capacity of the Management Officer appointed within the provisions of that Act. It was, therefore, held that the Commissioner was not justified in examining the order of the Tehsildar as no revenue court or officer had any jurisdiction to interfere with it or to sit in appeal over the judgment of the Management Officer. That case is clearly distinguishable from the present one. The appellant plaintiff does not seek any declaration or decision of the lower courts to the effect that the disputed land is or is not the evacuee property or that the allotment thereof is or is not valid. What he seeks is only this - the status of a sub-tenant in respect of the land in dispute and his right to continue in possession thereof until evicted therefrom in due course of law. The tenancy rights in respect of the disputed land became the evacuee property. The plaintiff appellant claims to be the sub-tenant under the evacuee tenant whose place has now been taken by respondent No. 1. The question that emerges for determination in the suit is as to whether the plaintiff is or is not the sub-tenant of the disputed land and whether he is entitled to continue in possession without interruption from the defendants till evicted therefrom in due course of law. These matters are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the revenue court. The decisions of the lower courts, therefore, are clearly illegal. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the lower courts and remand the case to the trial court (Assistant Collector, Kota) with the direction that it should be tried and decided on merits in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above. .