Judgment Hon'ble , J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant is aggrieved against the order dated 13th May, 2008 passed by the Addl. District Judge No.1, Jodhpur in Civil Original Suit No.162/2006 by which the trial court passed the order to return the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation in proper court on application submitted by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. 3. According to learned counsel for the appellant though the land is recorded as agricultural but it is surrounded by the Abadi land has come within the Municipal area of Jodhpur and further more is that the land in question was never cultivated, therefore, the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit relating to the land in question. 4. It is not in dispute that as per Section 207of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, any suit with respect to the agricultural land can be instituted only in the revenue courts and civil courts' jurisdiction has been excluded. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim & Ors vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat reported in AIR 193 SC 2585 and in Adhunik Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Etc vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr reported in AIR 1989 SC 867 as well as the judgment of this Court delivered in Banshidhar & Anr. vs. Ram Narain reported in 1997 WLC (UC) Raj. 676. 6. The above judgments have entirely different facts. In the case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim (supra), the matter was under consideration for taxation law under the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the case of Adhunik Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court noticed the fact the land was even not assessed for land revenue. In the case of Banshidhar & Anr. (supra) also it is the finding recorded by the court that neither the land revenue was paid for the land nor it was cultivated. 7. In view of the above reasons, the aforesaid judgments have no application to the facts of the case. In the case of Banshidhar & Anr. (supra) also it is the finding recorded by the court that neither the land revenue was paid for the land nor it was cultivated. 7. In view of the above reasons, the aforesaid judgments have no application to the facts of the case. The law in Rajasthan is very clear and it excludes the agricultural land from the jurisdiction of the civil court and there are law by which the agricultural land can be converted into Abadi land and mere fact that the agricultural land holder himself put the land for non-agricultural purpose is not sufficient for conversion of land from agricultural land to Abadi land. In Rajasthan, as per law, no agricultural land holder (Khatedar Tenant) can convert the agricultural land to Abadi land without permission of State. The taxation law may have deeming clauses for taxing the transaction and valuing the property, but same cannot be accepted while determining the jurisdiction of the civil court qua the jurisdiction of revenue court. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the defendant never contended that the land was cultivated, therefore it is not agricultural land. The argument is of no consequence in view of the fact that the nature of land is not dependent upon the fact that whether it is cultivated or not. When it is admitted case that land was not converted to Abadi from agricultural land and it is recorded as agricultural land in the revenue record, there is no merit in this appeal. 9. Hence, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.