1/5 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8850/2008 (Vaga Ram vs. State of Raj.& Ors.) DATE OF ORDER : 13/7/2009 HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.P.C.Solanki, for the petitioner. Mr.R.R.Vyas, for the respondent. By this petition the petitioner has challenged the concurrent rejection of the temporary injunction in a suit filed by him for cancellation the orders of three revenue courts namely S.D.O's order dated 25/8/2003, R.A.As order dated 31/1/2001 and Board of Revenue's order dated 30/6/2002. In the said suit the plaintiff claimed to be adopted son of respondent no.5 – Smt. Pokhadi w/o Late Shri Jeeva ji. The land in question was entered in the name of present petitioner after the death of Jeeva Ji, who claimed to be adopted son of Jeeva ji. In the suit filed by respondent no.5 Smt.Pokhadi w/o late Shri Jeeva ji, the revenue courts have held in her favour that settlement authority could not mutate the land in favour of plaintiff-present petitioner, who claimed to be adopted son of said person Jeeva ji. During the pendency of appeal, the parties had arrived at a compromise vide Annex.2 dated 27/7/88 under which Smt. Pokhadi Bai agreed for the 2/5 name of present petitioner to be included in the revenue record to avoid the dispute. However, later on she was advised to file revenue suit claiming her own rights over the said land. That suit came to be decided in her favour. The petitioner has not challenged the order of Board of Revenue dated 30/6/2002 by any appropriate remedy either by approaching this Court or otherwise. However, the present suit was filed by the present petitioner Vaga Ram in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr.Div.), Raniwada praying for quashing the three decrees against him in which suit the application of temporary injunction was also filed by the petitioner, which came to be dismissed by both the courts below on 11/12/2007 and 6/5/2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the mother had relinquished her rights in favour of present petitioner under Annex.2 compromise, therefore, he was entitled to claim quashing of these decrees against him in the present suit and proviso to Section 259 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 saves this kind of suits. On the other hand, Mr. R.R.Vyas submits that there was no 3/5 relinquishment of rights by mother in favour of her adopted son- present petitioner and to avoid the dispute the mother had agreed for his name to be included in the revenue records. But lateron, she was legally advised to file suit against the present petitioner in the revenue court, which she did and succeeded at all the three forums. He submits that the civil court cannot quash the decrees of revenue courts upto Board of Revenue in a suit like the present one filed by the petitioner. He drew the attention of this Court towards Section 259 of the Act of 1956 and submits that no suit or other proceedings shall lie in such matters. Having heard the learned counsels, this Court is of the view that the suit filed by the present petitioner in the learned trial court was absolutely misconceived. Section 259 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 reads as under:- “259. Jurisdiction of civil courts excluded.- No suit or other proceedings shall, unless otherwise excepted by any express provision made in this Act or in any other enactment or law for the time being in force, lie or be instituted in any civil court with respect to any matter arising under and provided for, by this act; 4/5 Provided that, if, in a boundary dispute or any other dispute between elstate-holders, a question of title is involved, a civil suit may be brought for the adjudication of such question.” A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision clearly indicates that no suit or other proceedings unless otherwise excepted by any express provision made in this Act or in any other enactment or law shall lie in civil court. The proviso which makes an exception to the main provision is applicable in case of a boundary dispute or any other dispute between the estate-holders relating to title. Merely because at one point of time respondent no.5 agreed for the name of present petitioner to be included in the revenue records under compromise Annex.2 that does not mean that she has relinquished her title in favour of present petitioner altogether. The fact that respondent no.5 succeeded before the revenue courts in all the three forums clearly establishes that she has legal right over the land in question. No civil suit for quashing the decrees of revenue court can be filed in view of the clear bar of Section 259 of the Act. The suit itself is misconceived and not maintainable. In rejecting the 5/5 prayer for temporary injunction in the suit like the present one, the learned trial court cannot be said to have committed any error and the suit itself deserves to be dismissed and same shall be treated as dismissed and consigned to record. In view of above, this writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.5000/- (DR.VINEET KOTHARI), J. item no.28 baweja/-