D.L.Mehta, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The petitioner has challenged the order (Ex. 3) dt. June 11, 1982 of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer. He has further prayed that it may be declared that the suit (Ex. 1) filed by respondent No. 3 is not triable by Revenue Court and is only triable by the Civil Court. Further ancillary prayers have also been made in the writ petition.
(3.) Respondent No. 3 filed a suit in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Hanumangarh. In para 2 of the said suit, it has been alleged that on Sept. 22, 1979, her husband has expired and she has no issue and as such, all the rights of her husband, devolved on her. In para 4 of the plaint, it has been submitted that on July 4, 1980, some one has got executed a sale deed in her name in favour of the petitioner. It was submitted that she has never executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. In the suit, she has sought a declaration that the plaintiff (respondent No. 3) is the tenant of the agricultural land referred to in the plaint, and the petitioner is having no right or interest in the said land. Relief relating to the possession was also prayed in the plaint. She has also prayed for compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and the Rajasthan Land Revenue Rules.;