PANCHA Vs. HAR GOVIND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case has come to us on a reference made by a learned Division Bench of this Board. The facts giving rise to it are that the appellant-plaintiff Panchia and others preferred a suit on their own behalf and on behalf of the residents of village Gothra, Tehsil Dausa, Dist. Jaipur, for a declaration that the suit land was the pasture land of the village on which all the villagers had a right to graze their cattle and collect the natural produce, for the cancellation of the Parcha Settlement issued in the name of the respondents, as well as for the possession of the suit land and for restraining the respondents from interfering with the right of the plaintiffs. The trial court (Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa) decreed the suit for declaration as as well as cancellation of the Settlement Parcha. No orders, it appears, were passed regarding possession and injunction. In appeal the learned Additional Commissioner, Jaipur relied on the Rajasthan High Court Ruling, 1960 RRD. III. 1960 RLW. 248, Codu Vs. Union of India, and dismissed the suit holding that it was not triable by revenue courts and remanded the case to the trial court with the direction that the plaint be returned for presentation to the proper court. In the appeal preferred to the Board it was urged on behalf of the appellants that the case of Codu relied upon by the learned Additional Commissioner was distinguishable from the present case. It was further urged on the authority of 1953 RLW 332 Gulla Vs. Dolia, that when the prayer for cancellation of the Parcha Settlement was triable by the revenue court other reliefs could also be granted by it.

(2.) THE learned members hearing the appeal came to the conclusion that the essential relief sought in the case was that the suit land be declared to be pasture land, that the prayer for the cancellation of the parcha was only an ancillary one. THEy further considered whether the prayer for the declaration of the suit land as pasture land was triable by a revenue court or not. THEy distinguished Codu Vs. Union of India, 1960 RRD. III. 1960 RLW. 248 from the present case on the ground that it was a suit for declaration that the sale of the standing grass by the former State of Ajmer was wrong and illegal along with the prayer for declaration that the plaintiffs had right title and interest to graze their cattle to the exclusion of the cattle of other villagers thereon, while that present case was for the declaration of the suit land to be a pasture land of the village and for the cancellation of the Settlement Parcha issued in the name of the respondent. Further examining the provisions of Sec. 251 and 5 (28) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Rules, 1955 prescribing the manner for the demarcation of pasture land along with the provisions of Sec. 16 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and Sec. 92 and 93 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act the learned Members came to the conclusion that a suit for declaration of any land as a pasture land was triable by a revenue court.