MANGILAL Vs. RAMLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against an appellate order of the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur dated 13.1.56, setting aside the order of the trial court and remanding the case back to it for further inquiry.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have examined the record as well. The learned Assistant Collector relying on a decision of the Rajasthan High Court in R.L.W. 55, Page 23, Gordhan vs. Kishorilal, held that revenue courts had no jurisdiction to try a suit against a trespasser whose possession ab initio was lawful but became unlawful because of subsequent developments This decision was based upon item 10, Group B, Schedule I of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951. This, item provides for suits for the ejectment of a trespasser taking possession of land without lawful authority. While interpreting the implications of this phraseology, their Lordships, were pleased to observe "Technically a person who wrongfully takes possession and a person who lawfully enters into possession but continues in possession unlawfully, are both trespassers, but item 10 only provides for a suit to lie in a revenue court in case a person who unlawfully takes possession of land and not for a suit in the case of a trespasser of the second kind. Such a case is not covered by any of the articles of the schedule and the civil courts have not been ousted of the jurisdiction to try a case of this nature" The position has, however, been changed by the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1935 which came into force on 15.10.1955. Item 23 of Part I of the 3rd Schedule of the Act provides for suits for ejectment of trespassers and the wordings which appear in item 10 of 1st Schedule of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act "taking possession of land without lawful authority" do not find any mention in this item. The obvious inference is that item 23 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act contemplates suits for ejectment of trespassers in both the cases to be within the jurisdiction of revenue courts and consequently the jurisdiction of the civil courts shall be deemed to be ousted in respect of such suits. The order of the learned Addl. Commissioner, therefore, calls for no interference. The appeal is hereby rejected.