Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the appellants.
(2.) THE appellants are aggrieved against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dt. 27.03.2008 by which the writ petition of the petitioners was dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiffs Banshi Lal and Hangami Lal -appellants filed one suit for declaration and injunction seeking declaration that they may be declared to be Khatedar -tenants of the agricultural land as they become Khatedar -tenants of the said land by virtue of the Will dt. 29.06.1996. They sought relief of injunction that any compensation of land acquisition proceedings may not be given to the respondent No. 1. The relevant facts are that for the land in question a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 21.02.1990 and it was published in the Gazette on 04.06.1992. Several awards dt. 12.02.1996, 19.02.1997, 14.02.1996, 09.04.1996 and 08.02.1996 were passed. The land stands acquired. The acquisition was not under challenge before the revenue Court and it should not have been in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in . During the pendency of the suit a consent written statement was filed by the contesting defendant admitting the validity of the Will dt. 29.06.1996.
(3.) THE learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and decree dt. 10.07.2006 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred above and observed that since the Revenue Court has no jurisdiction to grant any relief to the plaintiffs because the nature of the land has been converted from agricultural land to Abadi land by virtue of land acquisition, therefore, no decree can be granted in favour of the plaintiffs. The judgment and decree of the trial Court was upheld by first appellate Court and by Board of Revenue in second appeal. The writ petition to challenge above judgments was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment. Hence, this special appeal.;