Somnath Iyer, J.
1. While the Assistant Commissioner made a re-grant to the petitioner in these seven Writ Petitions, the Deputy Commissioner made the re-grant to the contesting respondents But in the appeal preferred by the petitioner to the Divisional Commissioner the order of the Deputy Commissioner was modified and there was a direction that the name of the contesting respondents should be continued in the Record of Rights as occupants of ordinary raiyatwari lands. There was also a direction that the name of the petitioner in the 'other rights' column in that record should he deleted. The occupancy price paid by both the parties was directed to be refunded.
2. From this decision of the Divisional Commissioner, there were revision petitions to the Tribunal by the petitioner The Revenue Appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion that the contesting respondents were holders of the walan and that they were therefore entitled to a re-graut
3. It is obvious that since the contesting respondents did not call in question the order of the Divisional Commissioner that their names should be entered in the Record of Rights Register as occupants of ordinary raiyatwari lands, the Revenue Appellate Tribunal could not have discussed the question whether they were the holders of the watan so as to become entitled to the re-grant on payment of an occupancy price. That part of the order of the Revenue Appellate Tribunal which was not within its competence must therefore be set aside.
4. The question which remains to be considered in that situation is whether, as contended by the contesting Respondents, the lands were not watan lands so as to vest in the Government under the provisions of the Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni Watan (Abolition) Act, 1950 (Bombay Act LX of 1950) or whether as contended by the petitioner those lands did vest in the Government under its provisions That question, according to the view expressed by this court on al least three occasions is one for adjudication by a Civil Court and not by the Assistant Commissioner or by the other hierarchy of authorities to whom an appeal or revision petition may lie from the order of the Assistant Commissioner That was the view expressed in Second Appeal No. 742 of 1962 and Writ Petitions Nos. 672 of 1964 and 687 of 1963 (Mys)
There is nothing in the decision of this Court in Annaji Vasudev v Venkatesh. 1966(l) Mys LJ 77=(AIR 1967 Mys 111) which can support a contrary view All that was decided in that rase was that ii' a re grant was properly made under the provisions of the Act,the re-grant could not be called in question in a Civil Court. That case did not decide whether the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to decide whether a land was a watan and so vested in the Government or whether it was not a watan and so could not. That question, It is obvious, as decided in the other three cases decided by this Court, is one which a Civil Court can alone decide.
5. That being so, we leave all these questions arising in these Writ Petitions to be decided by a Civil Court which has undoubted jurisdiction to decide them, and since, that is a more efficacious and comprehensive remedy which is available to the petitioners, we decline to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and dismiss these Writ Petitions with the observations we have made in the course of this order and without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners to institute a suit for appropriate reliefs in a Civil Court
6. No costs.
7. Petitions dismissed.