Jagat Narayan, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision application by the plaintiffs in a suit against an appellate order of the District Judge, Pratapgarh confirming an order of the Civil Judge, Chittorgarh rejecting the plaint on the ground that the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit.
(2.) ACCORDING to the allegations made in the plaint the plaintiffs were in continuous possession of some agricultural land situated in village Parlia as tenants for a very long time. On an application by Smt. Bhanwar Bai, the Revenue Secretary to the Government passed an order on 19. 7. 55 directing that the plaintiffs be ejected from the land in suit and possession over it be delivered to Smt. Bhanwar Bai. It was asserted that the order of the Revenue Secretary was void and illegal inter alia on the ground that he had no authority to pass any such order, that the order had been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and that the fundamental rights of the plaintiffs under Art. 19 (l) (f) of the Constitution had been violated. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate and am satisfied that the revenue court alone has jurisdiction to try the suit. I would like to mention that I do not agree with all that has been said by the two courts below in their judgment. Sec. 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act provides for the bringing of a suit for grant of perpetual injunction by a tenant whose right to or enjoyment of the whole or part of his holding is invaded or threatened to be invaded by his landholder or any other person. Sec. 207 (2) of the same Act lays down that no court other than a revenue court shall take cognizance of any suit based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any suit or application in revenue court. On behalf of the applicants it is argued that the revenue court has no jurisdiction to decide as to whether the order passed by the Revenue Secretary was without jurisdiction, whether it offended principles of natural justice and whether it was void as it violated the fundamental right conferred on the applicants under Art. 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution. I am unable to agree with this contention. The revenue court has jurisdiction to consider and adjudicate upon these matters and to grant the relief sought by the applicants in the present suit. Another contention advanced on behalf of the applicants was that as an order had already been passed by the Revenue Secretary a suit for permanent injunction will not lie against it in the revenue court. This contention has no force. If the Revenue Secretary has no jurisdiction to pass the order in question the revenue court is fully entitled to declare that it is void and inoperative and to grant a perpetual injunction against the State of Rajasthan, the Collector and the Tehsildar restraining them from enforcing it. I accordingly dismiss the application. In the circumstances of the case I direct that parties shall bear their own costs. .;