Dave, J. - (1.) THIS case comes on a reference made by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Churu, under sec. 243 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act (No. 3 of 1955 ).
(2.) IT is one of those unfortunate cases in which no progress has been made inspite of the lapse of a number of years, because it has been transferred from one court to the other on account of a doubt or conflict in the jurisdiction of the Revenue and Civil Courts. This suit was instituted in June 1943 in the court of the District Judge, Ratangarh, by Ganpat Singh for recovery of possession of 1100 Bighas of land situated in Hanwant-pura in Tehsil Churu. The case remained pending in that court till 1949 when it was transferred to Sub-Judge, Churu, by an order of the High Court of Bikaner, dated 10. 5. 49. Then, it remained pending in the court of Sub-Judge, Churu, till 26. 2. 51. On 26. 2. 51, it was conceded by counsel for both the parties that the suit had become exclusively triable by a revenue court under sec. 6 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act (No. 1 of 1951), and so the case was sent to the court of the Assistant Collector, Rajgarh. Thereafter, there was some change in the jurisdiction of the revenue courts and therefore the case was sent to the court of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Churu. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Churu, thought that the case was triable by a civil court and so he sent it to the Senior Civil Judge, Churu, but the latter returned it by saying that if there was any doubt about jurisdiction, the matter should be referred to the High Court under sec. 243 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Churu, has accordingly made the present reference with the permission of the Collector, Churu. Learned counsel for plaintiff Ganpat Singh is present and says that the suit is now exclusively triable by the revenue court in view of sec. 183 read with sec. 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. This view seems correct for the following reasons. Sec. 207 of the said Act lays down that all suits and applications of the nature specified in Third Schedule shall be heard and determined by a revenue court and that no court other than a revenue court shall take cognizance of any such suit or application or of any suit or application which is based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief can be obtained by means of any such suit or application. Sec. 183 provides for suits relating to ejectment of trespassers. Item No 23 of Third Schedule of the Act provides a period of 12 years for institution of a suit for ejectment of trespasser under sec. 183. The term 'trespasser' has been defined in sec. 5 (No. 44) as "a person who takes or retains possession of unoccupied land without authority or who prevents another person from occupying land duly let out to him. " It has been averred by the plaintiff in the present case that the land in dispute belonged to his ancestors and that the defendants have taken possession thereof illegally. It thus discloses a cause of action in respect of which a relief may be given by the revenue court and as such it is exclusively triable by it. It may be pointed out that sec. 239 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, provides that if a question of proprietary right in respect of the land forming subject-matter of the suit is raised and if it has not been previously determined by a civil court of competent jurisdiction, the revenue court should frame an issue on the question of proprietary right and submit the record to the competent civil court for the decision of that issue only. The report of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Churu, seems to point out that in his opinion the question of proprietary right was involved in the present case. This Court need not go into that question at the present stage. It would suffice to point out that even if at any time, the revenue court feels that a question of proprietary right is involved, it may proceed under Sec. 239 of the Act. It has jurisdiction to hear and decide this case and therefore it will proceed in the matter and try to dispose of the case expeditiously because it has been pending for a very long time. The reference is answered accordingly. The file be sent back to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Churu, with direction to proceed in the matter according to law. .;