JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against order dated 16.11.10 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.) (East), Bhilwara in Civil Suit No.135/93, allowing an application preferred on behalf of the respondent-defendant under Order 7, Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC and order dated 24.12.11 passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Bhilwara, dismissing the appeal preferred against the aforesaid order dated 16.11.10. 2. The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the State Government from demolishing the shop constructed by him on a plot measuring 20' x 10'. During the pendency of the suit, the respondents-defendants preferred an application under Order 7, Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC, which was allowed by the court below vide order dated 16.11.10 and the plaint was returned to the petitioner-plaintiff for presentation before competent court. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which stood dismissed vide order dated 24.12.11 by the appellate court. Accordingly, petitioner accepting the correctness of the order passed by the court below, preferred a suit for permanent injunction before the revenue court of competent jurisdiction accompanied by an application under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC seeking temporary injunction. The application preferred by the petitioner-plaintiff stands rejected by the revenue court vide order dated 16.2.12. While dismissing the application, the revenue court has observed that the power to convert the agriculture land for residential and commercial use has been conferred upon Urban Improvement Trust and therefore, the matter with regard to the change of the land use is not within the jurisdiction of the said court. In these circumstances, the petitioner has questioned the legality of the order passed by the courts below as aforesaid by way of this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as per the rules, Urban Improvement Trust has been authorised to regularise the unauthorised possession and conversion of agriculture land to residential/commercial use on depositing the amount as prescribed and therefore, the land in question falls within the category of abadi land and not agriculture land. Learned counsel submitted that the entry of the land as agriculture land in the revenue record can always be questioned by the petitioner by way of civil suit. 4. Learned counsel submitted that the entry of the land as agriculture land in the revenue record can always be questioned by the petitioner by way of civil suit. 4. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner having availed the remedy before the revenue court, while accepting correctness of the orders passed by the courts below, cannot be permitted to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this court to question the legality thereof at this stage merely because, an application preferred by him seeking temporary injunction stands rejected by the revenue court. Learned counsel submitted that the land in question having not been converted for residential/commercial use, it continues to be agriculture land and therefore, the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 6. It is not the case of the petitioner that the use of the land in question on which he has unauthorisedly constructed a shop stands converted from agriculture to residential/commercial in accordance with rules and therefore, the land continues to be agriculture land. In this view of the matter, in the considered opinion of this court, relying upon the decision of this court, the courts below have committed no error in holding that the suit preferred by the petitioner in respect of the relief claimed is not maintainable before the civil court. Moreover, the petitioner having accepted the correctness of the orders passed by the courts below and availed the remedy before the revenue court of competent jurisdiction cannot be permitted to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this court at this stage, questioning the legality of the order passed by the courts below, while simultaneously pursuing the remedy already availed as aforesaid. However, it is always open for the petitioner to take remedy against the order dated 16.2.12 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer available under the relevant statutes. 7. For the aforementioned reasons, no case for interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. 8. The petition is therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******