Honble MADAN, J. – This Revision Petition has been preferred by the petitioner-defendant against the order dated 19.1.1995 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Sambharlake, whereby the said court decided issue No. 5 as the Principle issue in favour of the plaintiff-non-petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 in the suit bearing No. 134/1993. (2). The question of law which have arisen for consideration of this court have been formulated as under :– (a) whether the land in question which had been entered into revenue record as agricultural land would required its conversion in to Abadi land for the purpose of construing the same as Abadi land with- in the ambit of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955? (b) whether the civil court is vested with the jurisdiction to entertain a declaratory suit in respect of agricultural land falling in Abadi area and if so whether the relief sought for by the plaintiff can be granted by the Civil Court? (c) whether in view of the nature of the land in question which is primarily agricultural and continues to be so in the revenue records till converted to Abadi land and whether in view of the Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short `the Act), the jurisdiction to decide the matter is exclusively vested in the Revenue Court and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred from entertaining to such suits in view of Section 27 of the Act ? (3). The facts giving rise to the filing of this Revision Petition briefly stated are that the plaintiff-non-petitioners 1 to 4 filed a Civil Suit for Declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant petitioner in the court of Civil Judge (JuniorDivision)-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Sambhar lake wherein it was pleaded that in respect of public land and property which is meant for use of inhabitants of the locality and the suit was filed in person as representative capacity on behalf of the residence of `Dhani Baghki. It was further pleaded in the said suit that there is public path way which passes through Kishangadh Renwal to Bagh Ki Dhani nearthe Water Works Department as described in the plaint. It was further pleaded that there is a public chowk marked as C D E F in the site plan annexed to the plaint and which is being commonly used by the villagers for last couple of years. It was further pleaded that there is a public chowk marked as C D E F in the site plan annexed to the plaint and which is being commonly used by the villagers for last couple of years. It was further pleaded that non-petitioner No. 1 had prepared a forged unregistered document dated 15.10.1965 in collusion with defendant No. 2 Nathu Lal and wantedto encroach upon the public property by obstructing the public path way and therefore it had become necessary that the defendant should be restrained by the court from causing any obstruction in the use of public path way or from causing any interference in the prescriptive right of the villagers in using the public chowk. (4). The suit was contested by the petitioner-defendant No. 1 by filing his wri-tten statement wherein it was pleaded that the disputed passage forms the part of the land which is recorded in the revenue record as Khasra No. 694 measuring 7 Bigha 3 Biswa in the name of the defendant No. 2 and the disputed land is neither a public chowk nor public path way and it is rather a part of agriculture land as referred to above and therefore the plaintiff-non-petitioners have no right, title orinterest in the disputed land and the suit should not have been filed either in personal or representative capacity by the plaintiff and deserves dismissal on this ground alone. It was further pleaded that the land in question forming part of Khasra No. 694 is an agricultural land and has not been converted in to Abadi land in the revenue records. The petitioner further contended in his written statements that hehas purchased the aforesaid land measuring 50x22 from defendant No. 2 on 15.10.1965 for consideration of Rs. 99.00 and since then he is in use and possession of the same as lawful owner and the possession of the petitioner being bonafide, the villagers have no right to interfere with its user by the petitioner and as such they have no locus-standi to file the suit seeking dispossession of the petitionerfrom the said land and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the said suit, since the matter is exclusively triable by a Revenue Court only. (5). (5). On the basis of the pleading of the parties, Civil Judge framed six issues and out of which Issue No. 5 which is relevant for deciding the controversy is as under as treated as the main issue which reads as under :– ``Whether the dispute regarding passage being part of Khasra No. 694 in the revenue record is triable by the Revenue Court and whether jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred from entertaining to the said suit? (6). With regard to the above issue the Civil Judge had recorded a specific finding that the land in question has come within the purview of Municipal Board and since in accordance with Section 92 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, disputed land has not been set apart for agriculture purposes and hence the Revenue Court does not have jurisdiction to grant any declaratory relief in respect of the same and the jurisdiction to entertain the said suit and grant declaratory relief is only vested with the Civil Court and hence the said issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. On the basis of the aforesaid findings in respect of Issue No. 5 as well as other issues it was finally held by the Civil Judge that in view of the provision of the Section 207 of the Act which specifically provides that all suits and applications of the nature specified in third schedule of the Actshall be heard and determined by the Revenue Court and no court other than the Revenue Court shall take cognizance of any such suit or application based on a cause of action in respect of which is any relief could be obtained by means of any such suit or application, Civil Court alone is competent to entertain and decide the said suit and the matter does not come within the purview of the Revenue Courtand only the Civil Court has jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief in respect of public land and consequently Issue No. 5 decided in favour of the plaintiff-non-petitioner against the defendant-petitioner. Since Issue No. 5 was treated as main issue the question was answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant vide impugned order dated 19.1.1995. (7). Since Issue No. 5 was treated as main issue the question was answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant vide impugned order dated 19.1.1995. (7). It is under these circumstances that the impugned order dated 19.1.1995 passed by Sessions Judge in Civil Suit No. 134/1993 has been challenged as arbitrary and contrary to law in the present Revision Petition by the petitioner on the ground inter alia that the petitioner had raised specific objection before the Civil Judge that in view of specific bar contained in Section 207 of the Act. The jurisdiction of theCivil Courts from entertaining the suit which fall within the purview of jurisdiction of the Revenue Courts, the finding recorded by the Civil Judge with regard to Issue No. 5 that the suit in person is triable by the Civil Court alone notwithstanding the fact that the passage in dispute form a part of Khasra No. 694 and was entered as agriculture land in the revenue record, the matter was cognizable only by the Reve-nue Court and till the said Issue was finally determined by the said court by giving the parties sufficient opportunity to lead evidence in this regard, Civil Court was not competent to adjudicate upon the same. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is well settled proposition of law that in respect of agriculture land falling within the Abadi area, unless and until an order of conver-sion has been passed and requisite conversion charges as determined by the competent authority are deposited and the nature of the land has been changed from agriculture to Abadi, till then the matter would obviously fall within the juris- diction of the Revenue Court and the Civil Court shall have no jurisdiction to entertain the said suit in view of the specific bar contained in the relevant provisionsof the Act. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per section 207 of the Act, the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the question at Issue is exclusively vested with the Revenue Court and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per section 207 of the Act, the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the question at Issue is exclusively vested with the Revenue Court and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred. There is specific provision in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act it self giving option to an aggrieved party to file a suit for declaration under Section 88 of thesaid Act and a suit for eviction/ejectment of the tenant under Section 183 of the Act and a suit for injunction under section 188 of the said Act and the learned Civil Judge has obviously erred in not taking note of the aforesaid salient provisions of the statute which have rejected in passing of the impugned order dated 19.1.1995. (8). I have heard learned counsel for the parties, examined their rival claimsand contention as well as the legal position on the subject. (9). Prima-facie I am of the opinion that in view of Section 207 of the Act it was the bounden duty enjoining upon the Civil Court not to have taken cognizance of the matter in view of the fact that the passage in question form part of the agriculture land in revenue records as Khasra No. 694 measuring 6 Bigha 3 Biswa and unless and until nature of the said land which is finally determined by the Revenue Court on the basis of evidence recorded to be led by the parties to the dispute, it was not proper for the Civil Court to have finally come to the conclusion that the land in question form part of Abadi land and, therefore, the Civil Court was competent to adjudicate the said declaratory suit and decide Issue No. 5 against the defendant-petitioner. At this stage it will be appropriate to refer to section 207 of the Act which reads as under :– ``207. Suits and applications cognizable by revenue court only (1) All suits and applications of the nature specified in the Third Schedule shall be heard and determined by a revenue court. (2) No court other than a revenue Court shall take cognizance of any such suit or application or of any suit or application based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any such suit or application. (2) No court other than a revenue Court shall take cognizance of any such suit or application or of any suit or application based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any such suit or application. Explanation : If the cause of action is one in respect of which relief might be granted by the Revenue Court, it is immaterial that the relief asked for from the Civil Court is greater than, or additional to, or is not identical with, that which the Revenue Court could have granted. (10). In this regard the reference may also be made to the provisions of Sec-tions 88, 183, and 188 of the Act which are reproduced as under :– ``Section 88. Suits for declaration of right – (1) Any person claiming to be a tenant or a co-tenant may sue for a declaration that he is a tenant or for a declaration of his share in such joint tenancy, (2) A tenant of Khudkast may sue for a declaration that he is such a tenant, (3) A sub-tenant may sue the person from whom he holds for a declaration that he is a sub-tenant, (4) A landholder other than a state government may sue a person claiming to be a tenant or co-tenant of a holding or a tenant of Khudkast or a sub-tenant for a declaration of the right of such per- sons. Section 183. ``Ejectment of certain trespassers (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any provision of this Act, a trespasser who has taken or retained possession of any land without lawful authority shall be lia- ble to ejectment, subject to the provision contained in sub-section 2(2) (on the suit of the person or persons entitled to eject him) and shall be further liable to pay as penalty for each agricultural year, during the whole or any part whereof he has been in such possession, a sum which may extend to 15 times the annual rent, (2) I n case of land which is held directly from the State Government or to which the State Government, acting through the Tehsildar, is entitled to admit the trespasser as tenant, the Tehsildar shall proceed in accordance with provisions of section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (Rajasthan Act 15 of 1956). Section 188. Section 188. ``Injunction against wrongful ejectment – (1) Any tenant whose right to or enjoyment of the whole or a part of his holding is invaded or threatened to be invaded by his land holder or any other person may bring a suit for the grant of a perpetual, (2) the court may after making the necessary enquiry grant a perpetual injunction in the following cases, namely :- (1) if there exists no standard for ascertaining the actual damage caused or likely to be caused by the invasion; (b) if the invasion is such that pecuniary compensation does not afford adequate relief; (c) where it is probable that pecuniary compensation cannot be got for the invasion; (d) where the injunction is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of proceeding. (11). Once there are specific provisions for granting declaratory relief to the aggrieved parties under the relevant provisions of the Act, as referred to above, including the right of file a suit for eviction/ejectment as well as suit for injunction under the Act itself, it is neither proper nor logical for the civil court to entertain the suit of such nature and should be referred to the revenue court alone for adjudica-tion in accordance with law. (12). I am fortified in my observations from the judgments of this Court in the matter of Rama Kant Khetan vs. Shri Ramhet Gupta & Ors. (11) and Balak Das vs. State of Raj., which were relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It has been consistent view of this court in the aforesaid matters that the jurisdictionof the Civil Court is ousted in view of the specific provisions contained in the Act and hence the impugned order dated 19.1.1995 passed by learned Civil Judge, Sambharlake is not sustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside. (13). In the matter of Rama Kant Khetan vs. Shri Ramhet Gupta & Ors. (supra), the question which had arisen for determination of this court was whether the CivilCourt was competent to entertain a suit for injunction in respect of agriculture land used for non-agricultural purpose and whether in absence deposit of requisite conversion charges, and whether in absence of conversion order having been passed by the competent authority, whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to grant the relief of injunction to the aggrieved part ? Learned single Judge of this courtwhile discussing the relevant provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, particularly Section 91-A of the Act which provides that the persons who use agriculture land for non-agricultural purpose can be ejected in accordance with the provisions of the law. It was further held by the learned single Judge of this Court that since no order of conversion had been passed in respect of agriculture land for non-agri-cultural purposes either by the government or by any competent authority, it was open to the State Government to regularise the said land on deposit of necessary conversion charges and unless and until conversion orders have been passed in this regard, the matter will vest with the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court. (14). The same view was reiterated by this Court in the matter of Hukma &Ors. vs. Smt. Narendra Kanwar & Ors. (supra) wherein similar controversy had arisen for consideration of this Court in Civil Misc. Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC against the order of learned Civil Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Learned single Judge while allowing the said appeal observed that on perusal of schedule 3 of the Act of 1995, it is specifically apparent that in serial No. 5 of the said Schedule, it isspecifically mentioned ``suits for declaration of the plaintiffs right; (i) as a tenant; (ii) as a tenant of Khudkast OR (iii) as a sub-tenant OR (iv) have a share in joint tenancy, at serial No. 8 it is mentioned that; ``suit for declaration of any other right, at serial No. 23 there is mention of; ``suit for ejectment of trespassers. Serial No. 26 of the Schedule mentions; ``Suits by or against grope holdes in relation to deter-mination, modification, recovery and payment of rent and when it has been specifically pointed out that when in the plaint it has nowhere been mentioned by the plaintiffs that land under the suit was Abadi land it was not open to the appellate court to take up the plea that it has set aside the judgment of the trial court and rather should have demanded the case to the trial court for recording the necessaryevidence and thereafter should have decided Issue No. 5 regarding jurisdiction of the court. (15). (15). I am in perfect agreement with the ratio of the aforesaid agreement of this court and I am of the considered opinion that it was the bounden duty of the civil court to have remanded the matter to the Revenue Court in view of the specific provisions of the Act instead of entertaining and deciding Issue No. 5 by taking cognizance of the matter on the ground that Civil Courts alone had jurisdiction to entertain and decide that declaratory suits. (16). In support of his contention advanced at the bar, Shri Ashok Mishra learned counsel for the respondents had placed reliance upon the following judgments – (17). Amarsingh vs. State of Raj. & Anr.(3), Gopal vs. Durga Prasad (4), Amir Mohammad vs. Gafoor Ahemad Khan & Ors. (5), R.S.E.B., Jaipur & Ors. vs. RamBaboo & State of Raj. (6), Manohar Lal vs. Smt. Rajbirkor & Ors. (7) and Bhanwaroo Khan & Ors. vs. Azim Khan & Ors. (8). (18). In the matter of Amarsingh vs. State of Raj. & Anr. (supra) the question which had arisen for consideration of this court in S.B.C.W. Pt. No. 413/1982 decided on 21.11.1994 was regarding interpretation of the Sections 92, 95 (4), 103(b), 140, 90-A, 102 & 126(a) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act 1956, Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment, Conversion & Regularisation of Agricultural Land for Residential & Commercial Purposes in Urban Areas) Rules 1981, 11 & 13 of the Rules of 1981. The writ petition was filed in this court by the petitioner in the matter concerning the interpretation of the aforesaid provisions of the Act of 1956 and theRules of 1981 as referred to above and since admittedly the land in question which was forming part of Khasra No. 27 in Motidoongari, Jaipur which was classified in the Revenue record as ``Gair Mumkin Abadi and was recorded in the records of rights in the name of one of the residents of the locality who as a vender sold the entire land falling in Khasra No. 27 to the Vendee vide a duly registered sale deedin the office of Sub-Registrar, Jaipur and since the consideration had already been paid as well as the Stamp Duty to the Vendee, while expenses for conversion were to be borne by the Vendee apart from the development charges etc. to be borne by the Urban Development Corporation, and also in view of the fact that the land recorded as `Abadi had been specifically excluded from the definition of term`land as defined under the Act of 1956, this Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties at length was finally of the view that there must be a definite criteria and guide lines which should be formulated by the rule making authority and in absence of which it would not be proper for the State Government to apply the said Rules. This Court while making the rule absolute directed the respondent to refrainfrom initiating any proceedings against the petitioner either under the provisions of the Act or the Rules of 1981 or any other rules in respect of conversion of agriculture land to non-agriculture purpose, since the land in question was admittedly Abadi land forming part of Motidoongri, Jaipur and no conversion charges were held necessary to be deposited by the petitioner. In my view the ratio of thisdecision as well as other decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents are not attracted to this case in view of the fact that in view of the objections raised by the petitioner that the suit which was filed by the plaintiff- respondent before the civil court could not be tried by the said court in view of the fact that the land in dispute was entered as agriculture land in the revenue recordsand the same has not been converted as Abadi land and in view of the Section 207 of the Act the exclusive jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the said suit is vested in the revenue court and therefore is specific bar under the statute to the jurisdiction of the civil court from entertaining any such suit. Admittedly in this case the question of payment of conversion charges by the petitioner to the competent autho-rity would not arise unless and until the matter is withdrawn from the aforesaid civil court and transferred to the competent court of revenue jurisdiction in view of the specific bar contained under the Act. Admittedly in this case the question of payment of conversion charges by the petitioner to the competent autho-rity would not arise unless and until the matter is withdrawn from the aforesaid civil court and transferred to the competent court of revenue jurisdiction in view of the specific bar contained under the Act. I am further of the view that the nature of the land which is recorded as agriculture land in the revenue records is yet to be finally determined by the competent revenue court on the basis of evidence to be led by the parties before the said court and it is only thereafter the question of either assessment of the conversion charges of payment thereof would arise of such conversion being permitted or allowed by the competent authority if the land happens to fall in the Abadi area. (19). In the result of Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 19.1.1995 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.)-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Sambhar lake in Civil Suit No. 135/93 is quashed and set aside. The aforesaid suit shall consequently stand withdrawn from the said court and transferred to the Revenue Court of competent jurisdiction and the said court is directed to take cognizanceof the matter immediately on receipt of the record from the court of learned Civil Judge, Sambhar lake, the said Revenue Court having jurisdiction to entertain the said suit shall adjudicate and decide the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties and also recording the evidence led by the parties shall finally decide the same after recording its reasoned findings and decide the matter as expedit-tiously as possible within a period of four months from the date of the receipt of records. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Civil Judge, Sambhar lake on 21.4.1997 and thereafter they should appear before the competent revenue court on 28.4.1997. The summoned record be sent back to the trial court immediately.