IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER The Gramothan Vidhya Vs. The Bal Mandir School, Sri Peeth, Sangaria Ganganagar & Ors. (S.B.C.WRIT PETITION NO.5711/06) Dated:- 30.10.2007 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr.J.S.Bhaleriya, for the petitioner. Mr.G.R.Goyal, for the respondents. BY THE COURT:- This writ petition is directed against order dated 28.04.2004 passed by the court of Revenue, whereby the revision petition preferred by the respondent against order dated 30.06.2000 passed by Revenue Appellate Authority, Sriganganagar, has been allowed, order impugned dated 30.6.2000 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sri Ganganagar in appeal No.160/97 so also the order dated 7.10.1997 passed by the Additional Collector, Sri Ganganagar in case No.270/97 have been set aside and the matter has been remanded to the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar with a direction to transfer the matter to the competent authority i.e. Assistant Collector or Sub Divisional Officer for decision in accordance with law, after hearing both the parties. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner preferred a suit u/s 183 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act , 1955(in short “the Act of 1955” hereinafter) against the respondent for its ejectment from the land of Chak 6 Z ,Murabba No. 21 of Kila No.1(0.17), Kila Nos. 2 to 8(7.00), Kila no. 9(0.18), Kila No.10(0.16) , Kila No.14(0.02) and Kila No.15(0.04), total 9.17 bighas. The petitioner also preferred an application u/s 212 of the Act of 1955 alongwith the suit for appointment of Receiver over the disputed land. The application preferred was allowed and vide order dated 17.11.83 passed by Deputy Collector, Sri Ganganagar, Tehsildar, Sri Ganganagar was appointed as Receiver . Aggrieved by aforesaid order dated 17.11.83, the defendant, respondent no.1 herein preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sri Ganganagar . The appeal was partly allowed and it was ordered that the respondent no.1 shall keep the possession over the disputed building and shall pay the rent determined by the Executive Engineer (Building & Tax), Sri Ganganagar to the Receiver and the remaining land shall continue to remain in possession of the Receiver. Aggrieved by the said order dated 28.11.83, the respondent no.1 preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue which was rejected by the learned Board vide order dated 1.8.89. Thereafter, the respondent no.1 preferred an application u/s 212 (2) before the trial court praying that the disputed land will be handed over to it on cash security. The application preferred was rejected by the Additional Collector(Administration), Sri Ganganagar vide order dated 7.10.97. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent no.1 preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sri Ganganagar. The appeal preferred was allowed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority vide order dated 30.6.2000 and the order dated 7.10.97 was set aside . The learned Appellate Authority permitted the petitioner to keep the possession over the land on deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/- per year. Aggrieved by the order dated 30.6.2000 to the extent that the amount of Rs.2000/- to be deposited every year fixed by the Appellate Authority is excessive, the respondent no. 1 preferred a revision petition before the learned Board of Revenue. The learned Board of Revenue arrived at the finding that the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar has erred in transferring the suit for trial to the Additional Collector(Administration), Sri Ganganagar inasmuch as for trial of the suit of ejectment , competent court is that of Assistant Collector or Sub Divisional Officer. Accordingly, the learned Board has set aside the order dated 7.10.97 passed by the Additional Collector(Administration), Sri Ganganagar so also the order dated 30.6.2000 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and while remanding the matter to the District Collector, has issued the directions as indicated above. It is contended by the learned counsel that the respondent no.1 had not challenged the validity of order dated 30.6.2000 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Appellate Authority. The challenge to the order was given only to the extent that the amount of security fixed by the Appellate Authority is excessive, therefore, the Board was not justified in setting aside both the orders and remanding the matter to the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar to transfer the suit for trial to the Court of Assistant Collector or Sub Divisional Officer. It is to be noticed that as per provisions of Section 237, a Collector or Sub Divisional Officer is competent to withdraw any case or class of cases from any Revenue Court subordinate to him and may try such case or class of cases himself or transfer the same to any subordiante Revenue Court competent to deal with it. As per provisions of Section 207 of the Act of 1955, all suits and applications of the nature specified in the IIIrd Schedule shall be heard and determined by a Revenue Court. A perusal of the entry No. 23 in the IIIrd Schedule attached to the Act of 1955 goes to show that the court competent to deal with and dispose of the suit preferred u/s 183 of the Act of 1955 for ejectment of tress passer is the court of Assistant Collector. In this view of the matter, the learned Collector in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 235 of the Act of 1955, could have transferred the pending suit to the court competent to deal with it i.e. the court of Assistant Collector and not to the court of Additional Collector. It is true that the challenge in the revision petition preferred before the Board of Revenue by the respondent no. 1 was limited to the extent that the amount of security fixed by the Appellate Authority is excessive but, the Board exercising the revisional jurisdiction is competent to correct the error apparent on the face of the record which relates to very jurisdiction of the court to try the suit . Thus, no jurisdictional error is found in the order impugned passed by the learned Board warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. (SANGEET LODHA),J.