B.J.SHETHANA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner who claims to be Harijan has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order passed by the Revenue Court i.e. S.D.O., Hanumangarh on 18.6.82 (Annex. 2) by which the suit filed by the present respondents No. 4 to 8 for eviction under Section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short the Act) came to be decreed against the petitioner and Shri Milkhi Ram, respondent No. 9 against which an appeal was preferred before the Revenue appellate authority, Bikaner which came to be dismissed on 27.1.1983 (Annex. 3). Second appeal preferred before the Board of Revenue also came to be dismissed on 5.10.88 (Annex. 4). These orders have been challenged by the petitioner in this petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Strictly speaking this is not a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but this is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel Shri Sharma for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the Revenue Court had no jurisdiction to decide the suit filed by the respondent Nos. 4 to 8 under the Tenancy Act. He submitted that it is only the civil court which had the jurisdiction to decide whether the sale deed was valid or not. He submitted that since the petitioner raised an objection before the revenue court that he was a schedule caste man and the sale deed was genuine one and the revenue court ought to have referred the issue after framing it to the civil court and only after the decision of the civil court the revenue court should have proceeded to decide the suit. In support of his submission, learned Counsel Shri Sharma relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in AIR 1955 Rajasthan page 94 (c). It must be stated that when the respondent Nos. 4 to 8 filed a suit against Milkhi Ram and their father Niku Ram they have lateron transpose as one of the plaintiffs and the present petitioner was not joined as defendant. Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 who filed the suit before the revenue court are Harijans. They filed suit before the revenue court alleging that their father Niku Ram executed sale deed and sold the land by 'Benami transaction' in favour of Milkhi Ram who was having possession of the land and, therefore, prayed for eviction and handover the possession to them from Milkhi Ram. It was then the petitioner applied before the revenue court to join himself as party defendant and he was allowed to be joined as one of the defendant. The revenue court after considering the evidence of the witnesses and the entire material on record came to the conclusion that the transaction was a 'benami transaction' and also gave the finding that the petitioner was not a schedule caste person and, therefore, decreed the suit in favour of the respondent Nos. 4 to 8. The revenue court also found that the petitioner Dharm Chand was not staying at the village where the land is situated and he has never cultivated the land. It also gave a definite finding that it was Milkhi Ram who was in possession of the land hence the suit was decreed and the possession was ordered to be handed over to the respondent Nos. 4 to 8.
(3.) THE aforesaid judgment of the Court cited by Mr. Sharma has no application to the facts of the present case. That case arisen out of the suit filed before the civil court for cancellation of sale deed executed and other reliefs of restoration of possession and for perpetual injunction were claimed as ancillary reliefs. Considering the facts and circumstances of that case this Court held that suit was exclusively triable by civil court and not by revenue court. The facts stated earlier and as set out in detail by the revenue court clearly show that the suit filed by respondent Nos. 4 to 8 before the revenue court was maintainable and in my opinion has rightly not referred the matter to the civil court. The suit was mainly for eviction and handing over the possession and no relief was claimed in the suit to declare the sale deed to be null and void and to set aside the same. It was only when the petitioner was joined as party, he came out with a case that he purchased the land and he is the owner of it. He also claimed that he was Harijan. All these points were decided against him by the revenue court which was the competent authority. This Court has to exercise its discretionary powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in favour of those persons who come with clean hands. Equity is not at all in favour of the petitioner. By getting such sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner by way of 'benami transaction' the respondent No. 9 and the present petitioner both are found to be of non -Scheduled Caste and they have tried to frustrate the provisions of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act under which land cannot be transferred by sale deed or otherwise in favour of non -Scheduled Caste person by a Scheduled Caste person.;