- (1.) N. L. Ganguly, J. This writ petition is directed against the order of the District Judge in Civil Revision by which he allowed the revision and set aside the order of the learned Munsif, dated 24-8 1994 rejecting the plaint.
(2.) A suit was filed for ejectment of the petitioner from the residential accommodation consisting of some rooms etc. A copy of the plaint has been filed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. It is not disputed that the ac commodation was let out @ R. 500 per month and it has been stated that the petitioner is a defaulter in payment of rent from the period 1-4-1983 to 30-6-1986 when the suit was filed. It is also not disputed that the house was constructed over agricultural holding for which the respondent moved an application for declaration that the said land which was previously agricultural holding was converted and was in use as abadi land. A suit previously for arrears of rent and ejectment was filed before the Judge Small Causes Court. In the said court, a plea of jurisdiction was raised and the plaint was returned for presentation before the appropriate court. After taking the plaint back, the respondent filed the said plaint before the Munsif's court. In the trial Court, an objection was |raised that the land over which the house was constructed, still continues to be an agricultural holding and unless a declaration was granted by the revenue court, the land nature would continue as agricultural holding and the civil courts would have no jurisdiction for entertaining the suit for ejectment and arrears of rent. This plea was accepted by the learned Munsif and the plaint was rejected. A revision was filed against the said order before the District Judge. The District Judge allowed the revision holding the civil court has jurisdiction to try the suit. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the nature of the land still continues to be agricultural holding. It is wholly irrelevant and immaterial that the residential house has been constructed thereon. He sub mits that unless a declaration by the revenue court was granted under Section 143 of U. P. Z. A. and L. K. Act, the land continues to be agricultural land and no suit could be entertained in the civil courts. He cited a number of cases. Learned Counsel for the petitioner cited 1966 Revenue Decision page 1 Mukheshwari Prasad and another v. Ram Bali and another. In this case, the question for consideration was whether the defendant in the suit who had encroached over the agricultural holding and made construction, such a suit would be competent in the civil courts or in the revenue court. The Division Bench held that civil court cannot take cognizance of a suit for purpose of agricultural holding and for demolition of unauthorised construction standing thereon but can take cognizance of a suit merely for demolition of the unautho rised construction made on the agricultural land.
(3.) ANOTHER decision reported in 1965 RD 183 - Mohd. Evaj and another v. Ram Prasad and another was cited. In the said case, the learned Single Judge was also dealing with a matter in which the defendant after encroaching over, the sirdari plot of the plaintiff, had raised certain unauthorised construction. The suit was filed for recovery of possession and damages in the revenue court. The learned Single Judge was of the view that such a suit was cognizable by the revenue court. Lastly a case 1968 reported in RD 470 - Ram Jyalamb v. Jata Shanker and another, was cited. This decision mainly dealing with the question about the jurisdiction of civil court and the revenue courts in suits and how to determine the jurisdiction of the courts in such a matter. The Full Bench of this court held that in each and every case, the cause of action of the suit shall have to be strictly scrutinized to determine whether the suit is wholly cognizable by the revenue court or lightly cognizable only by the revenue court or is cognizable by the civil court. Further "illustrations have been given in the judgment on the above lines to arrive at a conclusion about the jurisdiction of the court.;