JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has filed this petition to impugned the order dated 11.11.1994 passed by the learned District Judge, Jaisalmer dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirming the order of the trial Court dated 22.5.1993 by which the application for temporary injunction filed by the non-petitioner-plaintiff under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 was allowed and the petitioner-defendant was restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff or making any interference with the land and was also asked to keepsfatus quo. 2. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that the non-petitioner Kanaram filed a suit for injunction in respect of the ancestral house, a small hut and a water pond and other structures over the land in dispute. He alleged that the petitioner defendant wanted to remove the hut and other structures of the non-petitioner and for that purpose the petitioner issued notices to the non-petitioner on 23.6.1982, 18.3.1987 and 20.10.1987. The non-petitioner-plaintiff also filed a suit previously but since the mandatory provisions of Section 80, CPC were not complied with, the suit was returned. The petitioner-defendant stoutly resisted the suit on the ground that the plaintiff-non-petitioner made a blatant encroachment upon the revenue land and made the above construction in the year 1981. An order was passed under the Colonisation Act on 25.6.1982 and the encroachment made by the plaintiff was removed. However, the plaintiff again made similar encroachment and filed the present suit along with an application under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2, CPC. The petitioner, therefore, challenged the maintainability of the suit on the ground that an order under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 (for short'the Act') was passed for eviction of the plaintiff-non-petitioner and it has also been complied with. The non-petitioner-plaintiff did not challenge the above order. As per Section 25 of the Act the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain the above suit of the plaintiff. Hence the Court committed a grave error. 3. It appears that the trial Court and the appellate Court were of the opinion that the land in question was being used as abadi land and it is also surrounded by abadi land. Hence the above land can be treated to be abadi land and for that reason the suit was found to be maintainable in civil Court. 3. It appears that the trial Court and the appellate Court were of the opinion that the land in question was being used as abadi land and it is also surrounded by abadi land. Hence the above land can be treated to be abadi land and for that reason the suit was found to be maintainable in civil Court. It was also found that when the plaintiff-non-petitioner was evicted from the land, the eviction memo does not bear the signature of the plaintiff. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the non-petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the orders passed by both the Courts on the ground that admittedly the land on which the construction has been made is an agricultural land. Both the Courts did not dispute the factual position. The only ground on which the Courts found the suit maintainable in a civil Courts was that the land in question, though revenue in nature was being used as an abadi land and in the neighbourhood also many residential houses etc. have been made. Hence the plaintiff could file the suit in a civil Court. According to him mere user of land cannot change the nature of the land. The suit was clearly without jurisdiction. The suit ought to have been filed under the relevant provisions of the Tenancy Act like Section 9(2)(a). He has relied on Chunniram v. State, 1981 RLW 593 . Learned counsel has also challenged the maintainability of the suit on the ground that since proceedings under the Colonisation Act have been taken and the plaintiff has once been dislodged, the suit is not maintainable. 6. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner argued that entries in revenue record cannot form basis for declaration of title and they do not confer any title also. He has cited the following cases : State of Himachal Pradesh v. Keshav Ram, 1997 AIR SCW 2041 , Ram Avtar v. Ram Dhani, 1996 AIR SCW 4264 and Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh, (1993) 5 JT (SC) 423 : AIR 1994 SC 1653 . 7. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner also submitted that there is a concurrent finding of the fact recorded by both the Courts and it is a settled law that unless the above finding is perverse, contrary to law or not in accordance with law, the same could not disturbed. 7. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner also submitted that there is a concurrent finding of the fact recorded by both the Courts and it is a settled law that unless the above finding is perverse, contrary to law or not in accordance with law, the same could not disturbed. The jurisdiction of Court is determined in accordance with the allegations made in the plaint. The plaintiff alleged in the plaint that the above land is abadi land. The Court should, therefore, not take a different view. 8. I have considered the arguments. From the record and even from the order passed by the Courts below, this fact cannot be concealed that the land over which the plaintiff has made constructions is an agricultural land. Both the Courts below have recorded this finding. They have only tried to save the suit form the mischief of jurisdiction on the ground that since the land in question was being used as abadi land and it is also in the vicinity of several residential houses, the land has become abadi land and, therefore, the suit could be maintained in civil Court. I am not impressed by the reasoning advanced by the Courts below. Admittedly this is an agricultural land. I also see the possibility that previously also the plaintiff faced the proceedings under the colonisation Act and according to the petitioner-defendant the plaintiff was dispossessed in the year 1981. However, the plaintiff again made encroachment and then filed the suit. From the above also it is clear that the land was agricultural land and the suit ought to have filed in a Revenue Court. For this I refer to the decision rendered in Chunniram v. State, 1981 RLW 593 . The facts were that the suit filed by the plaintiff was in fact in substance for arrangement of Khatedari rights praying for declaration, perpetual injunction and demolition of building on agricultural land. It was held that the suit was triable by Revenue Court and not Civil Court. For the above reasons the orders passed by the Courts below cannot be sustained. 9. I, therefore, allow the revision petition and set aside the orders of the Courts below and dismiss the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2, CPC. No order as to costs.Revision allowed. *******