RAMSWAROOP Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against order dt. 16.11.10 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.) (East), Bhilwara in Civil Suit No. 135/93, allowing an application preferred on behalf of the respondent -defendant under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 C.P.C. and order dt. 24.12.11 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Bhilwara, dismissing the appeal preferred against the aforesaid order dt. 16.11.10. The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the State Government from demolishing the shop constructed by him on a plot measuring 20' x 10'. During the pendency of the suit, the respondents -defendants preferred an application under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 C.P.C., which was allowed by the Court below vide order dt. 16.11.10 and the, plaint was returned to the petitioner -plaintiff for presentation before competent Court. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which stood dismissed vide order dt. 24.12.11 by the appellate Court. Accordingly, the petitioner accepting the correctness of the order passed by the Court below, preferred a suit for permanent injunction before the revenue Court of competent jurisdiction accompanied by an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. seeking temporary injunction. The application preferred by the petitioner -plaintiff stands rejected by the revenue Court vide order dt. 16.2.12. While dismissing the application, the revenue Court has observed that the power to convert the agriculture land for residential and commercial use has been conferred upon Urban Improvement Trust and therefore, the matter with regard to the change of the land use is not within the jurisdiction of the said Court. In these circumstances, the petitioner has questioned the legality of the order passed by the Courts below as aforesaid by way of this writ petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that as per the rules, Urban Improvement Trust has been authorised to regularise the unauthorised possession and conversion of agriculture land to residential/commercial use on depositing the amount as prescribed and therefore, the land in question falls within the category of abadi land and not agriculture land. Learned counsel submitted that the entry of the land as agriculture land in the revenue record can always be questioned by the petitioner by way of civil suit.

(3.) I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.