Bhiwadi Tehsil Tijara District Alwar (Raj) v. Parishad Bhiwadi Tehsil Tijara District Alwar

Judgment

1. Smt. Mishro W/o Mangla, Aged About 75 Years, R/o Of Ward No. 8 Village Milakpur Nagar Parishad Bhiwadi Tehsil Tijara District Alwar (Raj)

2. Matadeen S/o Mangla, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Of Ward No. 8 Village Milakpur Nagar Parishad Bhiwadi Tehsil Tijara District Alwar (Raj)

3. Ramkuwar S/o Mangla, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Of Ward No. 8 Village Milakpur Nagar Parishad Bhiwadi Tehsil Tijara District Alwar (Raj) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.K. Mathur, Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Aayush Goyal, Adv. Mr. Lucky Sharma, Adv. : Ms. Anita Agarwal, Adv. For Respondent(s) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Judgment / Order REPORTABLE Reserved On :

08.08.2025 Pronounced On :

14.08.2025 1- vihykFkhZ@oknh ¼vkxs ^^oknh^^ dgk tkosxk½ }kjk ;g nhokuh fofo/k vihy vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k dze&1] frtkjk [2025:RJ-JP:30801] (2 of 11) [CMA-3658/2018] ftyk&vyoj }kjk nhokuh okn la[;k 15@2018 esa ikfjr vihyk/khu vkns'k fnukad 26-07-2018 ls O;fFkr gksdj is'k dh gS ftlds ek/;e ls izR;[email protected] ¼vkxs ^^izfroknhx.k^^ dgk tkosxk½ dk vkosnu vUrxZr vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 lh-ih-lh- o vkns'k 7 fu;e 10 lh-ih-lh- lifBr /kkjk 151 lh-ih-lh- Lohdkj dj flfoy U;k;ky; dk {ks=kf/kdkj ugha ekurs gq, l{ke {ks=kf/kdkj ds U;k;ky; esa okn izLrqr djus gsrq ykSVk;k x;kA 2- fo}ku vf/koDrk oknh rFkk izfroknhx.k dh cgl lquh x;h] vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA 3- la{ksi esa lqlaxr rF; ;g gSaa fd oknh }kjk fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k foHkktu dk ,d okn izLrqr djrs gq, ;g vfHkdfFkr fd;k fd xzke feydiqj xqtZj rglhy frtkjk ftyk&vyoj esa fLFkr vkjkth la[;k 354 jdok 0-6700 gsDVs;j ?kuh vkcknh ls f?kjk gqvk gS rFkk lEifRr esa iDdk fuekZ.k gks pqdk gS] ;g lEifRr vkcknh {ks= esa vkrh gS] izfroknhx.k ds lkFk oknh dk Hkh bl Hkwfe esa gd o fgLlk gS rFkk okni= ds lkFk tekcanh dh udy o vU; nLrkost layXu djrs gq, foHkktu dk vuqrks"k pkgk x;kA 4- izfroknhx.k }kjk vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 lh-ih-lh- ds rgr vkosnu izLrqr dj ;g vfHkdfFkr fd;k fd fookfnr Hkwfe d`f"k Hkwfe gS] vr% jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e] 1955 ¼ftls vkxs ^^vf/kfu;e&1955^^ dgk tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 207 ds vuqlkj ekeyk jktLo U;k;ky; }kjk lquokbZ ;ksX; gS] flfoy U;k;ky; dk {ks=kf/kdkj oftZr gSA mijksDr vkosnu vihyk/khu vkns'k ds [2025:RJ-JP:30801] (3 of 11) [CMA-3658/2018] ek/;e ls Lohdkj djrs gq, oknh dk okn vLohdkj dj l{ke U;k;ky; esa ykSVk;s tkus dk vkns'k fn;k x;kA 5- fo}ku vf/koDrk oknh dk fuosnu gS fd okni= esa of.kZr vfHkdFkuksa ds vuqlkj gh oknxzLr d`f"k Hkwfe ij vkoklh; fuekZ.k gks j[kk gS] pkjksa rjQ vkcknh ls f?kjk gqvk gS rFkk o"kZ 2009 esa ;g {ks= uxjifj"kn {ks= ds uxjh; ;ksX; {ks= esa vk pqdk gS] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa vc ;g Hkwfe d`f"k Hkwfe ugha jgh gSA fodYi esa ;g Hkh fuosnu fd;k fd ;g rF; o fof/k dk fefJr iz'u gS] tks fook|d ds fojpuk djus ds mijkUr vf/kdre izkjfEHkd fook|d ds :i esa ;g fcUnq fu.khZr gks ldrk Fkk] izfroknhx.k dk vkosnu vUrxZr vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 lh-ih-lh- Lohdkj ;ksX; ugha Fkk] vUr esa vihyk/khu vkns'k vikLr dj ;g vihy Lohdkj fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA 6- blds foijhr fo}ku vf/koDrk izfroknhx.k dk fuosnu gS fd ;g Hkwfe vkcknh vFkok vd`f"k iz;kstukFkZ :ikUrfjr@ifjofrZr ugha gqbZ gS] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa lquokbZ dk {ks=kf/kdkj ek= jktLo U;k;ky; dks gSA mUgksaus vihyk/khu vkns'k dks fof/klEer gksuk crkrs gq, ;g vihy [kkfjt fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA 7- fo}ku vf/koDrk oknh dh vksj ls bl U;k;ky; dh led{k ihB }kjk ,dyihB nhokuh fofo/k vihy la[;k 719@2025 Khurshid and Ors. Vs. Hamid And Anr. esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 19-02-2025 dh izfr is'k dh] ftldk voyksdu fd;k x;k] ftlesa vkoklh; Hkwfe ds laca/k esa izfroknh [2025:RJ-JP:30801] (4 of 11) [CMA-3658/2018] }kjk voS/k :i ls yxk;s x;s fd;ksLd ds laca/k esa fu"ks/kkKk pkgh x;h FkhA 8- fo}ku vf/koDrk oknh dh vksj ls izLrqr vU; U;kf;d fu.kZ; Banshidhar & Anr. Vs. Ram Narain 1997 WLC (Raj.) UC 676 ds ekeys esa Lo;a izfroknh }kjk oknh dks oknxzLr Hkwfe vkcknh Hkwfe ds :i esa fodz; dh x;h Fkh vkSj mlh ds laca/k esa izfroknh }kjk d`f"k Hkwfe gksus dh vkifRr yh x;h Fkh] fodz;i= esa ckM+s dks vkoklh; Hkwfe gksus dk mYys[k fd;k x;k] d`f"k Hkwfe ds laca/k esa dksbZ rF; mYysf[kr ugha FkkA 9-

oknh dh vksj ls izLrqr vU; U;kf;d fu.kZ; Srimohan @ Mohan Lal Joshi Vs. Sitaram Joshi & Ors. RLW 1997 (1) Raj. 63 ds ekeys esa okn esa fookfnr Hkwfe dks vkoklh; Hkwfe gksuk crk;k Fkk vkSj ;g vfHkdfFkr fd;k x;k Fkk fd bl Hkwfe ds laca/k esa Hkwfe ,oa Hkou dj LFkkuh; fudk; }kjk olwy fd;k tk jgk gS vkSj bl izdkj okn esa of.kZr vfHkdFkuksa ds vk/kkj ij d`f"k Hkwfe ds dksbZ ladsr rd ugha FksA 10- ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk Eldeco Housing and Indurstries Ltd. Vs. Ashok Vidyarthi and Ors. 2023 INSC 1043 ,oa Soumitra Kumar Sen Vs. Shyamlal Kumar Sen & Ors. 2018 DNJ (SC) 769 esa ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 lh-ih-lh- ds vkosnu ij fopkj djrs le; ek= oknh ds vfHkdFkuksa o okni= ds lkFk izLrqr nLrkostksa ij gh fopkj fd;k tk ldrk gSA orZeku ekeys esa oknh us oknxzLr Hkwfe ds [kljk uEcj vkfn dk mYys[k djrs gq, vizR;{k :i ls bl lEifRr dks d`f"k Hkwfe gksuk Lohdkj [2025:RJ-JP:30801] (5 of 11) [CMA-3658/2018] fd;k gS] ijUrq prqjkbZ ds lkFk ;g vfHkdfFkr fd;k gS fd orZeku esa blesa dksbZ dk'r yEcs le; ls ugha gks jgh gS rFkk ;g Hkwfe pkjksa rjQ vkcknh ls f?kj x;h gSA okni= ds lkFk jktLo vfHkys[k izLrqr fd;k gS ftlds vuqlkj Hkh ;g Hkwfe fufoZokn :i ls d`f"k Hkwfe gS rFkk vd`f"k iz;kstukFkZ mldk :ikUrj.k vFkok ifjorZu gqvk gks] ,slk oknh dk dksbZ dFku ugha gSA Lo;a oknh ds okni= o mlds lkFk izLrqr nLrkostksa ds vuqlkj oknxzLr Hkwfe dk d`f"k Hkwfe gksuk izekf.kr gSA 11- fo}ku vf/koDrk izfroknhx.k }kjk izLrqr o fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk vk/kkfjr fd;s x;s fu.kZ; Lal Singh Jhala Vs. Panna Lal 2016(0) Supreme (Raj.) 905 ds ekeys esa jktLFkku Hkw&jktLo vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼ftls vkxs ^^vf/kfu;e&1956^^ dgk tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 103] vf/kfu;e&1955 dh /kkjk 5¼24½ rFkk vU; lqlaxr izko/kkuksa ij fopkj djus ds mijkUr fuEukuqlkj O;oLFkk izfrikfnr dh x;h gS& "A bare look at the above two definitions, which have been indicated in two provisions relating to the Acts which deals with the land and abadi land, clearly reveals that till such time that the 'land' is not converted into 'abadi land', the same continuous to be land i.e. agriculture land with consequences as provided under both the Acts. ...................it is well settled that pertaining to an unconverted agriculture land, the suit would lie before the Revenue Court only and the Civil Court's jurisdiction would be barred under the provisions of section 207 of the Tenancy Act." 12- Rama Kant Khetan Vs. Sri Ram Het Gupta & Ors. 1985 RLR 281 ds ekeys esa bl U;k;ky; }kjk ;g [2025:RJ-JP:30801] (6 of 11) [CMA-3658/2018] vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS fd tc rd d`f"k Hkwfe dk Hkw&mi;ksx ifjorZu ugha gksrk gS rc rd mldh izd`fr d`f"k Hkwfe gh jgsxhA 13- vU; U;kf;d n`"VkUr Jannat Firdosh And Anr. Vs. Alfu & Ors. 2008(1) WLN 374 (Raj.) ds ekeys esa d`f"k Hkwfe ds laca/k esa vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 lh-ih-lh- dk vkosnu Lohdkj djrs gq, ;g vfHker izdV fd;k x;k gS fd ekeyk jktLo U;k;ky; }kjk fopkj.kh; gS] flfoy U;k;ky; dk {ks=kf/kdkj ugha gS] bl fu.kZ; dk iSjk la[;k&5 lqlaxr gS tks fuEukuqlkj gS& "5. From a bare reading of Section 207(1) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act shows that there is bar about the jurisdiction of the civil Court and this is statutory bar. This jurisdiction cannot be conferred by the parties in the Court which has no jurisdiction. The nature of the land can be changed only by obtaining appropriate order from the competent authority for conversion of the land from one category to another and for that purpose also, in the State of Rajasthan, there are other sets of rules framed under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act also prescribes the procedure of the revenue Courts also. Therefore, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant delivered in the case of Abdulla Bin Ali (supra) has no application to the facts of the case." 14- blh izdkj bl U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; Premi Devi Vs. Deva Ram & Ors. 2009 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 410 esa Hkh leku izd`fr dk fookn mRiUu gqvk Fkk rFkk U;k;ky; }kjk iSjk [2025:RJ-JP:30801] (7 of 11) [CMA-3658/2018] la[;k&3] 7 rFkk 8 esa tks vfHker izdV fd;k x;k] og lqlaxr gS tks fuEukuqlkj gS& "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.

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." [2025:RJ-JP:30801] (8 of 11) [CMA-3658/2018]

15. blh izdkj Ram Kripal Das Ji Charitable Trust Vs. Phool Chand & Ors. 2012(3) RLW 1999 (Raj.) ds ekeys esa Hkh Hkw&jktLo vf/kfu;e] 1956 dh /kkjk 90, ds izko/kkuksa ij fopkj djus ds mijkUr fuEu vfHker izdV fd;k gS& "Although, it is an admitted fact that a temple and some other buildings have been constructed on the land in dispute and it is not being used for agriculture purposes since long but merely by that reason the nature of the land can not be said to be changed. Mere construction of a temple or some building on an agriculture land without proper permission can not change its real nature. It is an admitted fact that the land in dispute in revenue record still stands as an agriculture land and respondents are khatedar-tenants of the same. An agriculture land can be used for a non agriculture purpose only in accordance with law. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:30801] (9 of 11) [CMA-3658/2018] 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 taken cognizance and considered by a court other than a revenue court. The learned trial Court has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the suit is not entertainable by a civil Court." 16- orZeku ekeyk oLrqr% d`f"k Hkwfe ds foHkktu ds laca/k esa gS tks vf/kfu;e] 1955 dh /kkjk 88 ds rgr gS vkSj vf/kfu;e&1955 dh r`rh; vuqlwph ds dze la[;k&5 ds vuqlkj ;g ekeyk jktLo U;k;ky; vFkkZr lgk;d dysDVj U;k;ky; }kjk lquokbZ ;ksX; gSA vf/kfu;e&1955 dh /kkjk 207 lqlaxr gS tks fuEukuqlkj gS& "Sec. 207. Suits and applications cognizable by revenue court only - (1) All suits and applications of the nature specified in the Third Schedule shall be heard and determined by a revenue court. (2)- No court other than a revenue court shall take cognizance of any such suit or application or of any suit or application based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any such suit or application. [2025:RJ-JP:30801] (10 of 11) [CMA-3658/2018] Explanation - If the cause of action is one in respect of which relief might be granted by the revenue court, it is immaterial that the relief asked for from the civil court is greater than, or additional to, or is not identical with, that which the revenue court have granted." 17- oknh@vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr rhuksa U;kf;d fu.kZ; Khurshid and Ors. Vs. Hamid And Anr. (Supra), Banshidhar & Anr. Vs. Ram Narain (Supra) rFkk Srimohan @ Mohan Lal Joshi Vs. Sitaram Joshi & Ors. (Supra) rF;ksa esa fHkUurk ds dkj.k ls gLrxr izdj.k ij ykxw ugha gksrs gSaA 18- blds foijhr fo}ku vf/koDrk izfroknhx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"VkUr Lal Singh Jhala Vs. Panna Lal (Supra), Rama Kant Khetan Vs. Sri Ram Het Gupta & Ors. (Supra), Jannat Firdosh And Anr. Vs. Alfu & Ors. (Supra), Premi Devi Vs. Deva Ram & Ors. (Supra) rFkk Ram Kripal Das Ji Charitable Trust Vs. Phool Chand & Ors. (Supra) esa izfrikfnr fof/kd O;oLFkk rFkk vf/kfu;e&1955 vkSj vf/kfu;e&1956 ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj d`f"k Hkwfe vkSj vkcknh Hkwfe nksuksa fHkUu gSa vkSj tc rd d`f"k Hkwfe dk vkoklh; vFkok vd`f"k iz;kstukFkZ :ikUrj.k@Hkw&mi;ksx ifjorZu ugha gks tkrk] rc rd og lHkh iz;kstu ds fy, d`f"k Hkwfe gh ekuh tkosxhA mijksDr d`f"k Hkwfe ij Hkw&:ikUrj.k djk;s fcuk fuekZ.k vFkok O;olkf;d fuekZ.k djk;k x;k gS vFkok vklikl vkcknh cl x;h gS] ek= bl vk/kkj ij fookfnr d`f"k Hkwfe dks vkoklh; vFkok vd`f"k [2025:RJ-JP:30801] (11 of 11) [CMA-3658/2018] iz;kstukFkZ fdlh Hkh iz;kstu ds fy, ugha ekuk tk ldrk rFkk ;s lHkh rF; vlaxr gSaA 19- ;fn dksbZ [kkrsnkj viuh d`f"k Hkwfe dks vd`f"k iz;kstukFkZ mi;ksx djuk pkgrk gS rks vf/kfu;e&1956 dh /kkjk 90, ds rgr fofgr izfdz;k viuk;h tkdj rFkk uxj lq/kkj dj o izhfe;e vkfn vnk dj l{ke izkf/kdkjh@jkT; ljdkj ls Hkw&:ikUrj.k vkns'k izkIr fd;k tkuk vko';d gS rFkk ,sls vkns'kksa ds fcuk vd`f"k iz;kstukFkZ d`f"k Hkwfe dk mi;ksx fd;k tkrk gS rks /kkjk 91¼1½ Hkw&jktLo vf/kfu;e ds rgr mlds fo:) csn[kyh lfgr vU; fof/k&lEer dk;Zokgh dh tk ldrh gSA orZeku ekeys esa Hkh oknh dh vksj ls d`f"k Hkwfe dk :ikUrj.k@Hkw&mi;ksx ifjorZu ugha djk;k gS] mlds ckotwn mldk ;g vfHkdFku fd bl Hkwfe dks vd`f"k iz;kstukFkZ ekuk tkos] ;g fuosnu fof/kd izko/kkuksa ds mYya?ku esa gS rFkk bls flfoy U;k;ky; vFkok laoS/kkfud U;k;ky; }kjk ekU;rk ;k Lohd`fr ugha nh tk ldrhA 20- mijksDr foospukuqlkj Li"V gS fd oknxzLr Hkwfe iw.kZr% o 'kq)r% d`f"k Hkwfe gS rFkk foHkktu ds laca/k esa {ks=kf/kdkj jktLo U;k;ky; dk gS] flfoy U;k;ky; dk {ks=kf/kdkj oftZr gS] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa vihyk/khu vkns'k iw.kZr% rF;ksa o fof/k ds vuq:i gSA 21- ifj.kker% vihyk/khu vkns'k dh iqf"V djrs gq, ;g vihy [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J Mittal /res.