It is an admitted fact that in the present case no permission of the State Government or any of the competent authority was obtained before temple and other buildings were constructed on the land in dispute, therefore, in my view the nature of the land is still that of an agricultural land and the real question to be decided in the present suit is whether by way of alleged oral gift khatedari rights have accrued to Maharaj Shree Ram Kripal Das Ji and subsequently to the appellant and whether a decree of declaration to that effect can be passed and respondents can be restrained by permanent injunction. In my view unless a clear finding to that effect is given, the relief claimed by the appellant cannot be granted. Under the provisions of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, declaration and permanent injunction regarding an agricultural land can be granted only by a revenue court. It cannot be disputed that a suit for declaration of tenancy rights regarding an agricultural land has to be filed under Section 88 whereas a suit for permanent injunction has to be filed under Section 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act provides that all suits of the nature specified in the III Schedule of the Act shall be heard and determined by a revenue court and no court other than a revenue court shall take cognizance of any such suit. A suit for declaration finds place in Item No.5 whereas suit for permanent injunction finds place in Item No.23 C of the III Schedule. It is thus, very much clear that the present suit was clearly barred by law as Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act bars such a suit from being
