SBCMA No.969/2008
Smt. Premi Devi Vs. Deva Ram & Ors.
1
SBCMA No.969/2008
Smt. Premi Devi Vs. Deva Ram & Ors.
DATE OF ORDER : - 24.9.2008
HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J.
Mr. NR Choudhary, for the appellant.
Mr. HS Champawat, for the respondents.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The appellant is aggrieved against the order dated
13th May, 2008 passed by the Addl. District Judge No.1,
Jodhpur in Civil Original Suit No.162/2006 by which the trial
court passed the order to return the plaint to the plaintiff
for presentation in proper court on application submitted by
the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 207
of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.
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
SBCMA No.969/2008
Smt. Premi Devi Vs. Deva Ram & Ors.
2
entertain the suit relating to the land in question.
It is not in dispute that as per Section 207of the
Rajasthan Tenancy Act, any suit with respect to the
agricultural land can be instituted only in the revenue courts
and civil courts’ jurisdiction has been excluded.
Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the
judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in the
case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim & Ors Vs.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat reported in AIR 193
SC 2585 and in Adhunik Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd.
Etc Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr reported in AIR 1989 SC
867 as well as the judgment of this Court delivered in
Banshidhar & Anr. Vs. Ram Narain reported in 1997 WLC
(UC) Raj. 676.
The above judgments have entirely different facts. In
the case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim (supra), the
matter was under consideration for taxation law under the
Income Tax Act, 1961. In the case of Adhunik Grah Nirman
Sahakari Samiti Ltd.(supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court noticed
the fact the land was even not assessed for land revenue.
In the case of Banshidhar & Anr.(supra) also it is the finding
SBCMA No.969/2008
Smt. Premi Devi Vs. Deva Ram & Ors.
3
recorded by the court that neither the land revenue was
paid for the land nor it was cultivated.
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 accpeted while determining
the jurisdiction of the civil court qua the jurisdiction of
revenue court.
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
SBCMA No.969/2008
Smt. Premi Devi Vs. Deva Ram & Ors.
4
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.
Hence, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.
(PRAKASH TATIA), J.
c.p.goyal/-