[2025:RJ-JP:43835] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 103/2025 1. Sharwan Kumar S/o Late Deburam, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Gram Dadiya, Ward No. -8, Dadiya, Tehsil And District Sikar (Rajasthan). 2. Smt. Kamla Devi W/o Shrawan Kumar, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Ward No. 8, Village Dadiya, Tehsil And District Sikar (Rajasthan). ----Petitioners Versus 1. Sultan Singh S/o Late Jamnaram, Aged About 86 Years, R/o Ward No. -8, Village Dadiya, Tehsil And District Sikar (Rajasthan). 2. Dhanne Singh S/o Late Jamnaram, Aged About 74 Years, R/o Ward No. 8, Village Dadiya, Tehsil And District Sikar (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Singh Shekhawat, Adv. For Respondent(s) : None Present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Judgment / Order 01/11/2025 1- ;kphx.k@izfroknhx.k }kjk ;g nhokuh fuxjkuh ;kfpdk vUrxZr 115 lh-ih-lh- izLrqr dj fo}ku vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k] dze&1 ftyk&lhdj }kjk nhokuh okn la[;k 91@2021 esa ikfjr vk{ksfir vkns'k fnukad 04-03-2025 ls O;fFkr gksdj is'k dh gS ftlds ek/;e ls izfroknhx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr vkosnu vUrxZr vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 lh-ih-lh- [kkfjt fd;k x;kA 2- foi{khx.k@oknhx.k dh vksj ls ckotwn uksfVl rkehy dksbZ mifLFkr ugha gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk ;kphx.k@izfroknhx.k dh cgl lquh x;h] vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA [2025:RJ-JP:43835] (2 of 7) [CR-103/2025] 3- fo}ku vf/koDrk ;kphx.k dk fuosnu gS fd Lo;a oknh ds vfHkdFkuksa ds vuqlkj oknxzLr d`f"k Hkwfe izfroknh dze&1 Jo.k dqekj ds firk nscwjke ds [kkrsnkjh vf/kdkjksa dh jgh gS rFkk nscwjke dh e`R;q ds i'pkr izfroknh dze&1 [kkrsnkj jgk gS vkSj mlds }kjk ;g lEifRr viuh iRuh vFkkZr izfroknh dze&2 dks fof/kd vf/kdkjksa ds rgr c['kh'k djrs gq, c['kh'kukek iathd`r djk;k gSA ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd oknhx.k dk oknxzLr Hkwfe ij dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha gS] ekeyk d`f"k Hkwfe ls laacaf/kr gS] vr% ?kks"k.kk o migkj i= dks fujLr djokus dk okn oknh }kjk oftZr gS] ysfdu mlds ckotwn fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk rF;ksa o fof/k ds foijhr tkdj izfroknhx.k dk vkosnu vUrxZr vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 lh-ih-lh- [kkfjt fd;k x;k gSA 4- ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk Eldeco Housing and Industries Ltd. Vs. Ashok Vidyarthi and Ors. (2024) 11 SCC 503 o Soumitra Kumar Sen Vs. Shyamal Kumar Sen & Ors. (2018) 5 SCC 644 esa ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;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 5- mijksDr fu.kZ; esa izfrikfnr O;oLFkk dks ns[krs gq, vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;k rks ;g izdV gqvk gS fd Lo;a oknhx.k us vius vfHkdFkuksa esa ;g vfHkdfFkr fd;k gS fd oknxzLr d`f"k Hkwfe nscwjke ds [kkrs esa xyr p<+h gqbZ gS] tcfd ekSds ij oknh i{k djhc 80 o"kksaZ ls dkfct gS rFkk mudk izfrdwy dCtk gks pqdk gS] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa ;g Hkwfe muds vf/kdkjksa dh ?kksf"kr dh tkos rFkk izfroknh dze&1 }kjk viuh iRuh ds i{k esa tks c['kh'kukek fu"ikfnr fd;k gS] mls fujLr fd;k tkosA 6- okni= esa of.kZr vfHkdFkuksa rFkk okn ds lkFk layXu nLrkostksa ds vuqlkj ;g Li"V gS fd ;g oknxzLr Hkwfe d`f"k Hkwfe gSA oknh i{k dk ;g vfHkdFku gS fd lEifRr dk yEcs le; ls vkoklh; mi;ksx fd;k tk jgk [2025:RJ-JP:43835] (3 of 7) [CR-103/2025] gS vkSj mlds vk/kkj ij mls vkoklh; lEifRr ekuk tkosA fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk bl fo"k; dks rF;ksa o fof/k dk fefJr iz'u ekuk gSA 7- bl U;k;ky; dh led{k ihB }kjk 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." 8- Rama Kant Khetan Vs. Sri Ram Het Gupta & Ors. 1985 RLR 281 ds ekeys esa bl U;k;ky; }kjk ;g 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 9- 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 [2025:RJ-JP:43835] (4 of 7) [CR-103/2025] 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." 10- 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 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:43835] (5 of 7) [CR-103/2025] 11. 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 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 [2025:RJ-JP:43835] (6 of 7) [CR-103/2025] 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." 12- ;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 13- orZeku ekeys esa ;g Lohd`r fLFkfr gS fd oknxzLr Hkwfe d`f"k Hkwfe gS rFkk izfroknh dze&1 ds [kkrsnkjh vf/kdkjks dh gS rFkk mlds }kjk viuh iRuh ds i{k esa c['kh'kukek fu"ikfnr fd;k gSA tc rd oknh ds [kkrsnkjh vf/kdkjksa dh ?kks"k.kk ugha gksrh gS] rc rd dfFkr c['kh'kukek dks fujLr fd;s tkus ds laca/k esa dksbZ ifjfLFkfr iSnk ugha gksrh gSA mijksDrkuqlkj Li"V gS fd orZeku okn oLrqr% oknhx.k ds [kkrsnkjh vf/kdkjksa dh ?kks"k.kk ds laca/k esa izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] ftlds laca/k esa lquokbZ dk vuU; {ks=kf/kdkj jktLo U;k;ky; dks gS rFkk flfoy U;k;ky; dk {ks=kf/kdkj oftZr gS] ysfdu mlds ckotwn fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk rF;ksa dk fof/k ds izko/kkuksa ds foijhr tkdj vk{ksfir vkns'k ikfjr fd;k gS tks vikLr gksus ;ksX; gSA 14- ifj.kker% ;g fuxjkuh ;kfpdk Lohdkj dh tkdj vk{ksfir vkns'k fnukad 04-03-2025 dks vikLr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk izfroknh i{k dh vksj ls [2025:RJ-JP:43835] (7 of 7) [CR-103/2025] izLrqr vkosnu vUrxZr vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 lh-ih-lh- Lohdkj fd;k tkdj oknhx.k dh vksj ls fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr okn vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 lh-ih-lh- ds rgr ukeatwj fd;k tkrk gSA (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J Mittal /18