NANURAM Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE FOR RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioners, who were defendants in a revenue suit, by this writ petition, challenge the legality of the judgment of the Revenue Board dated 16th November, 1952 by which the Board held that the suit filed by the respondents Nos. 2 to 10 was triable by a revenue court and accordingly it reversed the order of the first court for returning the plaint. THE writ petition thus raises a short question whether the present suit was triable by a revenue court. We may outline the relevant facts -

(2.) THE defendants petitioners, who were residents of village Satlana in Jodhpur. district, were introduced as tenants of Khasras Nos. 764, 779, 806, 808 and 811 by the then Jagirdar of Ahore and had started cultivating them in Smt. 2012. Respondents No. 2 to 10 who were the villagers claimed that the Khasras in question formed part of the pasture land of the village, wherein the villagers had customary right for grazing their cattle from times immemorial. Accordingly they filed a suit on 22nd July, 1957 in the court of Assistant Collector, Jodhpur for a declaration that the disputed Khasras formed part of the pasture land of the village and they also asked for an injunction to restrain the defendants-petitioners from interfering with the grazing rights of the plaintiffs in the disputed land. THE defendants-petitioners raised objection before the court that the suit was not triable by a revenue court and the court accepted this objection and ordered the return of the plaint to the plaintiffs in accordance with O. 7, r. 10 Civil Procedure Code. THE plaintiffs-respondents then went in appeal to the Revenue Appellate Court but without any success. THEy then approached the Board of Revenue in revision THE Board held that the matter was concluded by a previous judgment of the Full Bench of the Board in Pancha vs. Hargovind (1 ). It was held in that case that the right to have a land declared as a pasture land cannot but be deemed to be a right conferred by the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and consequently a suit for declaration of such a right can properly be entertained by the revenue court under sec. 91 thereof. THE full Bench of the Revenue Board over-ruled an earlier Division Bench case of the Board, Daya vs. Lalsingh (Appeal No. 7/jalore/58, decided on 28th of October, 1960) in which it was held that a suit of this nature was not triable by a revenue court. A decision of this court reported as Uodu vs. Union of India (2) was cited before the Board, but it distinguished the same. It considered the case of Ramphal vs. Board of Revenue for Rajasthan and others, decided by this court on 30th October, 1961 and thought that this case went to show that the question whether a land is a pasture land or not has to be examined by the revenue courts themselves. THE Board also took into consideration the various provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, and came to the conclusion that as the right to have a land declared as a pasture land cannot but be deemed to be a right conferred by the Act such a suit can be properly entertained by the revenue courts under sec. 91 of the Act and sec. 92-A of that Act covered the suits for injunction in respect of such rights.