MAHARAJI Vs. NATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is in reference by the learned Collector, Bharatpur under sec. (2) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act 1955 (herein -after referred to as the Act) and arises out of the following circumstances; - -

(2.) Mst. Maharaji brought a suit against Natha, Shiv Singh etc. in the court of the Assistant Collector, Bharatpur on 22.4.55 for recovery of Rs. 700/ -as compensation for damages to her banjar land. It was alleged in the plaint that the banjar land -in dispute measuring 77 Bighas 1 Biswas is being leased out by Mst. Maharaji every year on Puchhi amounting to Rs. 350 - that in Svt. 2010 also the natural prod -uce of the banjar land was being protected for Puchhi purposes, that the defendants who bore ill will towards her deliberately drove their cattle in the land and inflicted considerable damage,"that in Svt. 2011 as well the same action was repeated by the defendants, that the defendants were liable to pay Rs. 700/ -as damages The defendants contested the claim and one of the pleas raised by them related to the jurisdiction of a revenue court On 21.11.55 the trial court decided this issue in favour of the plaintiff on the ground that after the enforcement of the Act, the suit was triable by a revenue court under sec. 179 of the Act. Thereafter the parties led their evidence on the other issues and eventually the case was fixed up for hearing arguments of the parties. On 2.2.57 the learned SDO came to the conclusion that the suit was not triable by a revenue court, and that the same was triable by a civil court. He accordingly forwarded the record to the Collector with the recommendation that the case be referred to the Board under Sec. 232 of the Act. The learned Collector after hearing the parties and examining the record agreed with the recommendation of the trial court and hence this reference.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have examined the record as well. It appears that the suit was instituted in the revenue court presumably under item 12 Group E Schedule I of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure & Jurisdiction) Act which provides for compensation on account of damages of crops by cattle. The word "crops" has nowhere been defined in the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure & Jurisdiction) Act. It has however been defined in the Tenancy Act as below: - - Sec. 5(g) - -"Crops" shall include shrubs, bushes, plants and climbers such as rosebushes, betal plants, mehndi bushes, plantains and papitas, but shall not include fodder and natural produce. If this definition were held applicable to the present suit evidently the suit would not stand covered by item 12 for destruction of fodder and natural produce in a banjar land by cattle would not amount to damages to crops. In view of the fact that the suit was pending at the time of the enforcement of the Act the question as to whether it was included within item 12 Group E of the First Schedule of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure&Jurisdiction) Act is mostly of academic importance as the forum for the suit shall have to be determined with reference to the provisions of the Act as laid down in sec. 206 of the Act. The learned SDO in his decision dated 21.11.55 had held that the suit was triable by a revenue court under sec. 179 of the Act. This contention is clearly untenable. Sec. 179 has reference to sec. 177 of the Act which lays down that a tenant shall on the application of the land -holder be liable to ejectment from his holding on the ground of any act or omission detrimental to the land or inconsistent with the purpose for which it was let or on the ground that the tenant or any person holding from him has broken a condition on the breach of which he is by a special contract liable to be ejected. In other words sec. 177 of the Act provides for the ejectment of a tenant by a land -holder for a detrimental act or a breach of condition. Sec. 179 of the Act lays down that a landholder may in lieu 6f issuing or applying for issue of a notice of ejectment under sec. 177 may sue for compensation or for an injunction with or without compensation or for the damages or waste with or without compensation. To read in this section something as may provide for a suit compensation by any one against any one else is clearly repugnant to the express provisions of the section itself. The section has to be interpreted as it stands and the only interpretation that can logically and reasonably be placed upon it is that it authorises a landholder to institute a suit for compensation in a revenue Court where the tenant has rendered himself liable to ejectment on a detrimental act or a breach of a condition and the land -holder instead of seeking ejectment considers it advisable to bring a suit for compensation. The present suit as pointed out is one for compensation for damages inflicted upon the natural produce of a banjar land by deliberately driving cattle -herd in it. Till the suit was governed by the provisions of the Rajasthan Revenue Court (Procedure & Jurisdiction) Act it may have been a debatable point as to whether it was triable by a revenue court or not. But after the enforcement of the Act on 15.10.55 all such doubts must stand resolved as the Act contains no provisions for the trial of such a suit by a revenue court. On the enforcement of the Act therefore the suit became entirely triable by a civil court and as provided in sec. 206(4) of the Act the revenue court was bound to transfer the same to the civil court having jurisdiction to, hear and determine the same. We, therefore, accept this reference, set aside the order of the S.D.O. Bharat -pur dated 21.11.55 and direct that the suit shall be transferred to the civil court under Sec. 206(4) of the Act.