CHHANGANI, J. - (1.) THIS is a reference under sec. 243 (1) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act by the Collector, Alwar. The relevant facts are these: - One Mst. Jeewani filed a suit in the Court of Munsif, Behror on 14. 11. 58 for a declaration that she is the owner of certain plots of agricultural land. A prayer was also made for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession over the plots. The defendants contested the suit and inter alia pleaded that the suit was triable exclusively by the Revenue Court. The Munsif, Behror accepted the contention of the defendant and transferred the case to the Court of Assistant Collector, Behror. The Assistant Collector finding that the plaintiff" was not a tenant but was a land-holder did not agree with the view expressed by the Munsif and thought that the suit was not triable by a Revenue Court. A reference was made to this Court through the Collector. In the mean-while the Rajasthan Zamindari and Biswedari Abolition Act No. 8 of 1959 (hereinafter referred to as Principal Act) was promulgated by the State legislature and under that Act the position of the plaintiff became merely that of a Khatedar tenant. In view of the altered position brought about by the Principal Act this Court held on 26th July, 1960 that the case is exclusively triable by a Revenue Court. On 28th June, 1960 the Government of Rajasthan State promulgated the Rajasthan Zamidari and Biswedari (Amendment) Ordinance No. 7 of 1960 (herin-after referred as the Ordinance ). Sec. 6 of the Ordinance amended sec. 29 of the Principal Act and for the original sub sec. (1) the following sub sec. (1) was substituted with retrospective effect: - "as from the date of vesting of an estate, the Zamindar or Biswedar thereof shall be a Malik of any Khudkasht land in his occupation on such date and shall as such Malik, be entitled to the rights specified in Part A, and be subject to the liabilities specified in Part B, of the Second Schedule annexed hereto. " Parts A and B of the Second Schedule specify the rights and the liabilities of the holder of the land continuing as ["malik". The Collector, Alwar seems to be of the opinion that this Ordinance should affect the forum of the cases like the present one as the land-holder is to be treated as a Malik under sec. 6 (1) of the Ordinance and the suit has to be continued by him as a land-holder. He has, therefore, made a second reference seeking a decision of this Court whether the case is triable by a Revenue court or a Civil Court.
(2.) IT is true that sec. 6 (a) of the Ordinance gives an impression that a change in the status of land holders who were Zamindars and Biswedars and whose estates became vested in the State on account of the Principal Act has been brought about. According to the plain language of the Ordinance a land-holder is to be treated as a malik having rights and liabilities as supecified in the second schedule. Thus a doubt does arise whether the case is triable by a civil court or a revenue court. The position has however changed on account of the subsequent Rajasthan Zamindari and Biswedari Abolition (Amendment) Act, 1960 (herein after called the Amending Act) which replaced the Ordinance. Sec. 6 of the Ordinance has not been incorporated in the Amending Act but instead a modified provision has been incorporated in sec. 5 of the Amending Act. There are obvious differences in the provisions of the Ordinance and the subsequent Act. Under the Amending Act the land-holder whose estate vested in the State on account of the Principal Act will be designated as a Malik but he shall be entitled to all rights conferred and be subject to the liabilities imposed on a khatedar tenant by and under Rajastha|n Tenancy Act, 1955 (Rajasthan Act 3 of 1955 ). IT is clear that the status of the land-holder shall be identical with one of a khatedar tenant although in name he shall be the Malik of the holding. The mere change in the designation does not deserve to be emphasised so as to affect the real status of the land-holder and consequently the law relating to the forum of suits by or against such a land-holder must be deemed to remain unaltered. A consideration of the historical background of the amending legislation fully supports the above conclusion. It appears that after the Principal Act the Zamindars and Biswedars made representations to the Government for changing their designations and probably also for changing their status. An Ordinance was then promulgated, the language of which is of course being interpreted to have effected a change in the status also. Later a Bill was introduced in the legislature on the lines of the Ordinance. The following extract from the statement of the object and reasons: - "on the representation of certain Zamindars and Biswedars it has been considered advisable to designate them as Maliks in respect of the khudkasht lands in their occupation on the date of vesting of their estates in the State Government and to set out their rights and liabilities in a Schedule to be appended to the Rajasthan Zamindari and Biswedari Abolition Act, 1959 instead of merely saying that they will have all the rights and be subject to all the liabilities of khatedar tenants in respect of their khudkasht lands. " shows that the one object of the Bill was to change the designation of the land-holders. The other object was to define the rights and liabilities of the land-holders in an independent manner otherwise than in terms of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and thus to effect a change in their status. It is significant that the provisions initially contained in the bill on the lines of the Ordinance to achieve the other object could not secure the legislative approval and the legislature thought it proper to substitute sec. 5 of the Amending Act for the original clause in the bill. Sec. 5 as discussed earlier merely indicates a change in the designation of the land-holders and does not bring about any substantial change in the status of the land-holder who will simply have the rights and liabilities of a khatedar-tenant in terms of the Tenancy Act. In the light of the fore-going discussions, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the position relating to forum of suits by Zamindars and Biswedars effected by the Principal Act continues to remain the same and does not warrant a transfer of cases pending before revenue courts to civil courts. The revenue court is accordingly directed to proceed to dispose of the case on merits and the reference is rejected. There will be no order as to costs. .;