JUDGMENT 1. :- Short question which arises for consideration in this revision is as to whether the civil court has jurisdiction to adjudge the validity of acquisition proceedings of the land acquired under the provision of Rajasthan Urban C Act 1959 (for short the Act)? 2. This question has emerged in the following circumstances: (i) The plaintiff-petitioner (for short the plaintiff) instituted a suit against the defendants non-petitioners (for short the defendants) in the court of Civil Judge J.D.) Ajmer City North alongwith an application under order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure , seeking relief of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plot in question measuring 150 sq. yds. and from raising, construction over it and to erase any construction if raised during the pendency of the application. (ii) The defendant Urban Improvement Trust (UIT) contended in reply that the land in question together with other land was acquired by the defendant UIT under fiction 52 of the Act and after acquisition, the land in question (plot No.81) was allotted to the defendant Nihal Chand. 'The defendant Nihal Chand averred in his reply that land referred in the application by the plaintiff was not situated at Anasagar Link Road. The sale deeds dated April 8, 1938 and July 16, 1986 do not give any title to the plaintiff and they deserved to be declared void. (iii) The Trial Court vide order dated July 26, 1996 rejected the application of the plaintiff. An appeal was preferred which was also rejected vide order dated October 9, 1996. (iv) Against the said orders present action for filing revision has been resorted to. 3. The lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff mainly on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to examine the validity of acquisition proceedings. Mr. S.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the plaintiff attempted to assail this finding by canvassing that the question of validity of acquisition proceedings could not have been gone through at the time of adjudication of interim application. Mr. Saxena, the learned counsel further contended that proceedings under Land Acquisition Act and the proceedings under 'the Act' cannot be equated and ratio of Laxmichand and others Vs. Gram Panchayet Kararia and others ( 1996(7) SCC 218 ) is not applicable in the instant case. 4. Mr. Saxena, the learned counsel further contended that proceedings under Land Acquisition Act and the proceedings under 'the Act' cannot be equated and ratio of Laxmichand and others Vs. Gram Panchayet Kararia and others ( 1996(7) SCC 218 ) is not applicable in the instant case. 4. On the other hand Mr. S.M. Mehta learned counsel for the defendant Nihal Chand vehemently contended that Notification under section 52 (1) of the Act was published in respect of land in question and other land in the Rajasthan Gazette dated August 4, 1979 and objection of the interested and affected persons were invited and thereafter it was validly acquired by UIT and allotted to Nihal Chand. The Civil Suit with respect of said land was not maintainable in view of ratio of State of Bihar Vs. Dhirendra Kumar & others ( AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1955) and Laxmichand and others Vs. Gram Panchayet (supra). 5. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in State of Bihar Vs. Dhirendra Kumar (supra) while adjudicating the question whether a Civil Suit was maintainable and whether ad interim injunction could be issued where proceeding under the land Acquisition Act was taken pursuant to the notice issued under the said Act, has observed thus: "We are, therefore, inclined to think, as presently advised, that by necessary implication the power of civil court to take cognizance of the case under section 9 of Civil Procedure Code stands excluded and a civil court has no jurisdiction to go into the question of validity or legality of the notification under section 4 and declaration under section 6, except by the High court in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution." 6. In the case of Laxmichand and others (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has again observed that the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act is complete Code in itself and thereby the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to take cognizance of the cases arising under the Act, by necessary implication, stood barred. 7. In my view, the scheme of Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act 1959 is complete Code in itself and thereby the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to take cognizance of the cases arising under the Act, by necessary implication stood barred and the ratio of State of Bihar case (supra) and Laxmichand case (supra) is applicable to the instant case. 7. In my view, the scheme of Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act 1959 is complete Code in itself and thereby the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to take cognizance of the cases arising under the Act, by necessary implication stood barred and the ratio of State of Bihar case (supra) and Laxmichand case (supra) is applicable to the instant case. In Peer Gulam Narseer's case RLR 1988 (2) 871 though, this court held that the controversy raised by the parties should not be decided at the stage of deciding the application for temporary injunction but in the case of State of Bihar (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court categorically observed that question of validity and legality of the land acquisition proceedings can be raised before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and as such the ratio of Peer Gulam Narseer's case (supra) is not applicable in the instant case.The courts below, in my view have not committed jurisdictional error and if the orders are allowed to stand, it would not occasion failure of justice. Consequently, I dismiss this revision with no order as to costs.Petition Dismissed. *******