SUSHILA Vs. KISHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant revision has been preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 25.10.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Div.), Mavli, District Udaipur in Civil Suit No.42/2013 whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11D r/w Section 151 CPC was rejected. Facts in brief are that the respondents No.1 to 7 herein filed a suit for permanent injunction against the present petitioners. It was averred in the suit that a piece of agricultural land belonging to the plaintiffs was located in the revenue village Sakroda, Tehsil Mavli. As per the averments made in the plaint, to the west of the plaintiffs' land, two agricultural lands bearing Araji No.628 and 622 were located, which were recorded in the revenue recordas as Kism Rasta and that the said path was the only way to approach the plaintiffs' agricultural land. It was claimed in the suit that the fields of the defendants (the petitioners herein) were located to the north, east and western side of the said arajis and that the defendants wanted to grab, usurp and merge the land of way into their property. For that end, the defendants got the nature of the land changed by procuring an illegal order from the District Collector, Udaipur. It was further alleged in the suit that the entry changing the nature of the land use was void and not binding upon the plaintiffs but was detrimental to their rights. It was further alleged that the defendants by getting the said entry made, obstructed the way of the plaintiffs without any justification. Thus, the suit was filed by the plaintiffs claiming permanent injunction against the defendants for restraining them from obstruction of the use of the said path available to the plaintiffs. Upon the service of summons of the civil suit, the defendants petitioners put in appearance and filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC submitting that the civil suit was not maintainable in view of Section 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, which debars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court from entertaining a dispute regarding the revenue lands. The said application was rejected by the learned trial Judge and hence, this revision. 3 Shri Ashwini Kumar Babel learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the order impugned is illegal. He referred to Section 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and urges that the provision is mandatory and no Civil Court can entertain a suit regarding dispute over revenue lands. He thus submits that the revision deserves to be accepted.

(2.) PER contra, Shri Sanjay Nahar learned counsel appearing for the respondents plaintiffs opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. He relied on a decision rendered by Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in the case of Badri Lal & Anr. Vs. Moda & Ors. Reported in AIR 1979 Raj. 142. He urges that the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in the above case has in unequivocal terms held that the Civil Court can grant relief regarding easementary rights even though the land is a revenue land. A suit for composite reliefs including the right of easement can be entertain by the Civil Court. Thus, he urges that the learned trial Court rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioners defendants.

(3.) IN the opinion of this Court, the dispute stands squarely covered by the aforesaid Full Bench Decision in the case of Badri Lal (supra). The Hon'ble Full Bench at para No.16 and 17 of the said decision approved the earlier decision of a Single Bench of this Court in the case of Hardayal Vs. Jaggasingh reported in AIR 1969 Raj. 89 and Gulla Vs. Doliya reported in 1953 RLW 332 and held that where out of two main reliefs claimed in the suit, one can be granted by a Revenue Court and the other can be granted by the Civil Court, then the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to proceed with the matter. In the present case also, the reliefs claimed are composite and include the relief of easementary rights which can be granted by the Civil Court. Thus, this court has no hesitation in holding that Civil Court had the jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The application filed by the petitioners defendants was thus rightly rejected by the order dated 25.10.2013.