Jurisdiction of Civil and Revenue Courts in Land Disputes: Supreme Court’s Clarification

The case of Pyarelal vs. Shubhendra Pilania & Others revolves around the jurisdiction of civil and revenue courts in land disputes, particularly concerning agricultural land. The Supreme Court examined whether the suit filed by the appellant seeking to declare a gift deed as void fell under the jurisdiction of the civil court or the revenue court under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.

The dispute arose when the appellant alleged that certain agricultural land was unlawfully transferred through a gift deed in favor of the respondent. The trial court initially ruled that the civil court had jurisdiction to decide the matter. However, the Rajasthan High Court reversed this decision, holding that the suit was barred under the Tenancy Act. The matter was subsequently brought before the Supreme Court.

Background of the Case

The appellant claimed that upon the death of the original landowners, the land devolved upon him and other legal heirs. However, certain respondents allegedly colluded to register the land in their name and executed a gift deed transferring ownership to another respondent. The appellant sought a declaration that the gift deed was void and an injunction against the respondents from further alienating the land.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The appellant contended that:

• The relief sought was not covered under Section 207 and the Third Schedule of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, and therefore, the civil court had jurisdiction.
• A suit before the civil court is maintainable even though a parallel suit was filed before the revenue court for the declaration of khatedari rights.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondents argued that:

• The jurisdiction of a civil court is barred for matters specified in the Third Schedule of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.
• Any issue related to tenancy rights must be adjudicated by the revenue courts.
• The appellant’s claim directly concerned khatedari rights, and thus the case should be tried exclusively by the revenue court.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled against the appellant, upholding the High Court’s decision that the suit was barred under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The key observations made by the Court were:

1. Exclusive Jurisdiction of Revenue Courts

The Court stated:

“Section 207 of the Tenancy Act states that no court other than a revenue court shall take cognizance of suits and applications of the nature specified in the Third Schedule.”

Since the appellant’s claim involved khatedari rights, the revenue court had exclusive jurisdiction.

2. Importance of Khatedari Rights in Determining Jurisdiction

The Court noted:

“The relief to declare the gift deed void and to restrain the respondents from interfering with the property vests in a civil court only when the claimant’s khatedari rights have been decreed by a revenue court.”

Since the appellant’s khatedari rights were still under adjudication, the civil court lacked jurisdiction.

3. Bar on Civil Suits for Tenancy Matters

The Court highlighted:

“Section 256 of the Tenancy Act bars the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters where a remedy is provided under the Act.”

Since the Tenancy Act provided a remedy for the appellant’s claims, the civil suit was not maintainable.

4. Precedents on Revenue and Civil Court Jurisdiction

The Court referred to the case of Shri Ram v. A.D.J., where it distinguished between a recorded tenure holder and an unrecorded claimant:

“A recorded tenure-holder with a prima facie title and possession can file a suit in a civil court, but an unrecorded tenure-holder must first establish their khatedari rights before approaching a civil court.”

Applying this principle, the Court held that since the appellant was not a recorded khatedar, he had to first approach the revenue court.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling reinforces the principle that civil courts do not have jurisdiction over tenancy matters where revenue courts provide a remedy. It establishes that individuals seeking to challenge transactions involving agricultural land must first establish their khatedari rights in a revenue court before filing a suit in a civil court.

This judgment serves as a crucial precedent in land dispute cases, ensuring that jurisdictional boundaries between civil and revenue courts are maintained.

Petitioner Name: Pyarelal.
Respondent Name: Shubhendra Pilania (Minor) Through Natural Guardian Pradeep Kumar Pilania & Others.
Judgment By: Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud.
Place Of Incident: Rajasthan.
Judgment Date: 29-01-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Pyarelal vs Shubhendra Pilania ( Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 29-01-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Uday Umesh Lalit
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category