[2025:RJ-JP:38584] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 46/2022 1. Hariram @ Hari Singh Son Of Ramswaroop, Resident Of Village Naiwada, Tehsil Bhusawar, District Bharatpur (Raj.) 2. Mukesh Son Of Hariram @ Hari Singh, Resident Of Village Naiwada, Tehsil Bhusawar, District Bharatpur (Raj.) 3. Bheem Singh Son Of Hariram @ Hari Singh, Resident Of Village Naiwada, Tehsil Bhusawar, District Bharatpur (Raj.) 4. Vijay Singh Son Of Hariram @ Hari Singh, Resident Of Village Naiwada, Tehsil Bhusawar, District Bharatpur (Raj.) ----Petitioners Versus 1. Hukam Singh Son Of Parbhati @ Pilla, Resident Of Village Naiwada, Tehsil Bhusawar, District Bharatpur (Raj.) 2. Nawal Singh Son Of Parbhati @ Pilla, Resident Of Village Naiwada, Tehsil Bhusawar, District Bharatpur (Raj.) 3. Banay Singh Son Of Parbhati @ Pilla, Resident Of Village Naiwada, Tehsil Bhusawar, District Bharatpur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amitabh Jatav, Adv. Ms. Preeti Kumari, Adv. For Respondent(s) : None Present. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Judgment / Order 19/09/2025 1- izfroknh&;kph dh vksj ls ;g fuxjkuh ;kfpdk fo}ku flfoy U;k;k/kh'k] Hkqlkoj }kjk nhokuh okn la[;k&22@2020 esa ikfjr vkns'k [2025:RJ-JP:38584] (2 of 5) [CR-46/2022] fnukad 14-09-2021 ls O;fFkr gksdj izLrqr dh] ftlds ek/;e ls izfroknh&;kph dk vkosnu varxZr vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 lh-ih-lh- [kkfjt fd;k x;kA 2- v;kph&oknh i{k uksfVl rkehy ds ckotwn mifLFkr ugha gSA 3- fo}ku vf/koDRkk izfroknh&;kph dk fuosnu gS fd fookfnr d`f"k Hkwfe okn esa of.kZr vfHkdFkuksa ds vk/kkj ij gh d`f"k Hkwfe gS] bl Hkwfe ds laca/k esa izfroknh }kjk jktLo U;k;ky; esa foHkktu dk okn izLrqr dj j[kk gS] ftlesa LFkxu vkns'k gS] ysfdu mlds ckotwn ;g i'pkr~orhZ okn flfoy U;k;ky; esa LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk ds laca/k esa izLrqr fd;k gSA izdj.k dh lquokbZ dk {ks=kf/kdkj jktLo U;k;ky; dks gS ysfdu blds ckotwn vk{ksfir vkns'k ds ek/;e ls izfroknh dk vkosnu varxZr vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 lh-ih-lh- rF;ksa o fof/k ds foijhr tkdj [kkfjt fd;k x;k gS] tks vikLr gksus ;ksX; gSA 4- oknhx.k }kjk fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k [kkrsnkjh vf/kdkjksa dh d`f"k Hkwfe [kljk uacj 548 jdck 1-2100 gSDVs;j xzke&uSokM+k] rglhy Hkqlkoj ds laca/k esa LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk dk okn izLrqr dj izfroknhx.k ds fo:) LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk dk vuqrks"k pkgkA okn i= esa ;g Hkh vfHkdfFkr fd;k gS fd mijksDr d`f"k Hkwfe dk mi;ksx vkoklh; iz;kstukFkZ gks jgk 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 fd;k gS] ijUrq prqjkbZ ds lkFk ;g vfHkdfFkr fd;k gS fd Hkwfe vkoklh; iz;kstukFkZ dke esa vk jgh gSA 5- 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 [2025:RJ-JP:38584] (3 of 5) [CR-46/2022] fopkj djrs le; ek= oknh ds vfHkdFkuksa o okni= ds lkFk izLrqr nLrkostksa ij gh fopkj fd;k tk ldrk gSA 6- U;kf;d 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] jktLFkku dk'rdkjh 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." 7- bl U;k;ky; }kjk Rama Kant Khetan Vs. Sri Ram Het Gupta & Ors. 1985 RLR 281 ds ekeys esa ;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 8- 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. [2025:RJ-JP:38584] (4 of 5) [CR-46/2022] 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." 9- blh izdkj blh U;k;ky; }kjk S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3658/2018 Om Prakash Vs. Smt. Mishro & Ors. esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 14-08-2025 ds iSjk la[;k&19 esa fuEu O;oLFkk izfrikfnr dh xbZ gS%& ^^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 [2025:RJ-JP:38584] (5 of 5) [CR-46/2022] 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** 10- pwafd oknxzLr Hkwfe d`f"k Hkwfe ls vkoklh; iz;kstukFkZ ifjofrZr ugha gqbZ gS rFkk tekcanh esa Hkh ;g Hkwfe vkt Hkh d`f"k Hkwfe ds :i esa gh ntZ gS] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa oknxzLr Hkwfe lHkh iz;kstuksa ds fy, d`f"k Hkwfe gh ekuh tk;sxh rFkk /kkjk 207 jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj izdj.k dh lquokbZ dk {ks=kf/kdkj bl U;k;ky; dks ugha gSA 11- fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk tks vk{ksfir vkns'k fnukad 14-09-2021 dks ikfjr fd;k x;k gS] og iw.kZr% rF;ksa o fof/k ds foijhr gS] vr% mls vikLr djrs gq, rFkk ;kph&izfroknh dk vkosnu varxZr vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 lh-ih-lh- Lohdkj djrs gq, izR;FkhZ&oknh dk fopkj.k U;k;ky; esa yafcr okn la[;k&22@2020 ukeatwj fd;k tkrk gSA 12- blh vuqlkj izfroknh&;kph dh vksj ls izLrqr fuxjkuh ;kfpdk Lohdkj dj fuLrkfjr dh tkrh gS rFkk LFkxu vkosnu o vU; vkosnu] ;fn dksbZ yafcr gksa] rks os mDrkuqlkj fuLrkfjr fd;s tkrs gSaA (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J DINESH KUMAWAT /28