[2026:RJ-JP:13376] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3523/2023 Banshi Lal Sharma S/o Late Shri Gangasahai Sharma, Aged About 47 Years, Resident Of Village Kanota, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur-303012, Through Poa Deepak Sharma S/o Shri Banshi Lal Sharma, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of-Village Kanota, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur. ----Appellant Versus 1. Ramavatar Sharma S/o Late Shri Gangasahai Sharma, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of -Village Kanota, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur-303012. 2. Prabhunarayan Sharma S/o Late Shri Gangasahai Sharma, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Village- Kanota, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur-302012. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. M.C. Gupta, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ram Rakh Sharma, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Judgment / Order 30/03/2026 1- vihykFkhZ&oknh ¼vkxs ^^oknh^^ dgk tkosxk½ }kjk ;g nhokuh fofo/k vihy fo}ku vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k cLlh] t;iqj egkuxj&izFke }kjk fu;fer nhokuh okn la[;k 10@2023 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 11-09-2023 ls O;fFkr gksdj is'k dh gS] ftlds ek/;e ls oknh dk okn flfoy U;k;ky; ds {ks=kf/kdkj dk ugha gksuk ekurs gq, l{ke U;k;ky; esa izLrqr djus gsrq vkns'k 7 fu;e 10 lh-ih-lh- ds rgr ykSVk;k x;kA 2- fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ rFkk izR;FkhZ i{k dh cgl lquh x;h] vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA 3- fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ dk fuosnu gS fd okLro esa bl ekeys esa izfroknh dh vksj ls /kkjk 10 lh-ih-lh- ds rgr vkosnu izLrqr fd;k Fkk] [2026:RJ-JP:13376] (2 of 7) [CMA-3523/2023] vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 lh-ih-lh- ds rgr dksbZ vkosnu is'k ugha fd;k x;k vkSj fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk Lor% gh vkns'k 7 fu;e 10 lh-ih-lh- ds rgr okn ykSVk;s tkus dk vkns'k fn;k x;k gS] ftl ij oknh dks lquokbZ dk i;kZIr volj ugha feykA ;g Hkh fuosnu fd;k fd d`f"k Hkwfe ij cus vkoklksa ds laca/k esa caVokjs ds vuqrks"k ds fy, flfoy U;k;ky; gh l{ke gSA 4- blds foijhr fo}ku vf/koDrk izfroknh&izR;FkhZx.k dk fuosnu gS fd d`f"k Hkwfe vkSj mlesa cus edkuksa ds laca/k esa caVokjs gsrq okn izLrqr fd;k x;k gS tks fd /kkjk 207 jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e] 1955 ¼vkxs ^^vf/kfu;e&1955^^ dgk tkosxk½ ds rgr jktLo U;k;ky; ds {ks=kf/kdkj dk gSA bl izdkj vihyk/khu vkns'k fof/k&lEer gksuk crkrs gq, ;g vihy [kkfjt fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA 5- tgka rd U;k;ky; }kjk Loizsj.kk ls okn ykSVk;s tkus dk iz'u gS] /kkjk&10 lh-ih-lh- ds vkosnu ds ek/;e ls izfroknh i{k }kjk ;g vkifRr yh x;h Fkh fd orZeku d`f"k Hkwfe ds laca/k esa jktLo U;k;ky; esa okn yafcr gS vkSj flfoy U;k;ky; dh dk;Zokgh dks LFkfxr j[ks tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA mDr vkosnu dh lquokbZ ds nkSjku U;k;ky; }kjk ;g ik;k fd ekeyk d`f"k Hkwfe ds foHkktu ds laca/k esa gS] vr% lquokbZ dk {ks=kf/kdkj flfoy U;k;ky; dks ugha gS vkSj mlds vk/kkj ij l{ke U;k;ky; esa okn izLrqr djus gsrq ykSVk;k x;kA bl fcUnq ij U;k;ky; }kjk nksuksa i{kksa dks lquk x;k gSA okn ykSVk;s tkus gsrq vkosnu izLrqr gksuk vko';d ugha gS] U;k;ky; Loizsj.kk ls vkns'k ikfjr djus gsrq l{ke gSA vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa bl izkjfEHkd vkifRr dks vLohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA 6- bl izdj.k esa ;g fooknjfgr fLFkfr gS fd d`f"k Hkwfe [kljk uEcj 362 vkSj mlesa cus gq, edkuksa ds foHkktu ds laca/k esa fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; esa okn izLrqr fd;k x;k FkkA ^^vf/kfu;e&1955^^ dh /kkjk 5¼24½ ds vuqlkj d`f"k Hkwfe ij cus iDds fuekZ.k Hkh d`f"k Hkwfe esa lekfgr gSaA d`f"k [2026:RJ-JP:13376] (3 of 7) [CMA-3523/2023] Hkwfe dks xSj d`f"k iz;kstukFkZ Hkw&ifjroZu djokdj fuekZ.k djok;k x;k gks] ,slh fLFkfr ugha gSA 7- blh U;k;ky; dh led{k ihB }kjk 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." 8- bl U;k;ky; }kjk 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 [2026:RJ-JP:13376] (4 of 7) [CMA-3523/2023] 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." [2026:RJ-JP:13376] (5 of 7) [CMA-3523/2023] 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 [2026:RJ-JP:13376] (6 of 7) [CMA-3523/2023] 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- blh U;k;ky; }kjk Prakash Vs. Smt. Mishro and Ors. 2025 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1165 esa Hkh ;gh O;oLFkk izfrikfnr dh gS] ftlds iSjk la[;k&18 o 19 lqlaxr gksdj fuEukuqlkj gSa& ^^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 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 [2026:RJ-JP:13376] (7 of 7) [CMA-3523/2023] 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 oknxzLr Hkwfe d`f"k Hkwfe gS rFkk ml ij gks j[ks fuekZ.k dk;Z Hkh ^^vf/kfu;e&1955^^ dh /kkjk 5¼24½ ds rgr d`f"k Hkwfe esa 'kkfey gS] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa izdj.k dh lquokbZ dk {ks=kf/kdkj ^^vf/kfu;e&1955^^ dh /kkjk&207 ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj jktLo U;k;ky; dks gh gS] flfoy U;k;ky; dks izdj.k dh lquokbZ dk {ks=kf/kdkj ugha gSA vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa l{ke U;k;ky; esa okn izLrqr djus gsrq ykSVk;s tkus dk vihyk/khu vkns'k iw.kZr% rF;ksa o fof/k ds vuq:i gS] ftlesa gLr{ksi fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gSA 14- vr% vihykFkhZ&oknh dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g vihy [kkfjt djrs gq, vihyk/khu vkns'k fnukad 11-09-2023 dh iqf"V dh tkrh gS] LFkxu izkFkZuk i= Hkh mDr izdkj ls fuLrkfjr ekuk tkrk gSA (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J Mittal /56