STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF GAINDMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The plaintiffs/respondent filed suit against defendant/ appellant State challenging the action of the appellant State in demanding the conversion charges from the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed the suit with the allegation that the land in question is an abadi land, therefore, no conversion charges can be demanded. The appellant State stated that the land is recorded as agriculture land in the revenue record and, therefore, they were justified in demanding the conversion charges. The two courts below after considering the revenue entry for the land in question as recorded by the revenue authorities, held that the land is abadi land and is being used as such and, therefore, no conversion charges for the land in question from agriculture to abadi can be demanded.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the land in question is recorded as agriculture in the revenue record, therefore, only the revenue court has jurisdiction and the civil court has no jurisdiction. Next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the land does not automatically stood converted because of change of land use and even if the agriculture land is used as abadi land, the land will remain agriculture and will not loose its character, therefore, according to learned counsel for the appellant, the trial court passed the decree wholly without jurisdiction. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the court below has committed serious error of law in holding that the plaintiffs are owners of the land in question.