1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2257/09 Shyam Lal vs. Appellate Tribunal, JDA & Ors. Date of order : 22/4/2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Sanjay Joshi for the petitioner. ****** The petitioner has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the order dated 13.2.09 by which the J.D.A. Appellate Tribunal has dismissed his reference case holding it to be non-maintainable. Shri Sanjay Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the land of khasra no.565, 568, 569 and 570 measuring 2.39 hectare situated in revenue Village Tatiyawas, Amer is in the possession of the petitioner from the time of his ancestors and prior to attainment of independence. Learned counsel submitted that this land has wrongly been declared as Sawai Chak and that JDA officials are threatening to dispossess the petitioner by recourse to Section 83 of the JDA Act. Learned counsels submitted that even though the petitioner has filed revenue suit before the SDO, Ajmer in which JDA was also party and interim order in such case is 2 obtaining against them, yet the JDA is not honouring that order and is bent on to dispossess the petitioner. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order, I find that the Tribunal in its order has taken note of the submissions of the petitioner that he has filed a suit for declaration of perpetual injunction under Section 88 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act before the revenue court and the Tribunal relied on the judgement of Board of Revenue in RRD 1990 page 212 and has held that for a dispute of this nature only revenue court would have the jurisdiction and the revenue court would also be competent to pass appropriate injunction order in so far the prayer for such relief is concerned. The Tribunal has therefore held the reference to be non maintainable as it would have no jurisdiction to adjudicate the revenue dispute and returned the case of the petitioner by recourse to Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Perusal of the order of Tribunal does not show any infirmity in the approach taken by it. The reference cannot be entertained 3 simply because as per the perception of the petitioner, the JDA would not abide by the injunction order passed by the revenue Court. If the JDA is a party to the revenue suit, the injunction order passed therein would be binding on the JDA as well and if the JDA still proceed to disposed of the petition pursuant to the impugned order, remedy of the petitioner lies in again approaching the revenue court for enforcement of its order. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/