[2026:RJ-JP:12678] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3544/2019 Jaipur Development Authority, through Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Office Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Gopi, S/o Narayan, R/o Bindayaka, Tehsil Jaipur, District Jaipur. 2. Kalu Ram, S/o Late Shri Chothu, R/o Bindayaka, Tehsil Jaipur, District Jaipur. 3. Banshidhar, S/o Late Shri Chothu, R/o Bindayaka, Tehsil Jaipur, District Jaipur. 4. State of Rajasthan through Tehsildar, Jaipur. 5. Board of Revenue through Presiding Officer, Ajmer, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arpit Shrivastava. For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.S. Rastogi, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Sarthak Rastogi. Mr. V.D. Gathala, AGC. Mr. Ashish Sharma. Mr. Sanjay Singhal. HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI Order 25/03/2026 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the judgment dated 14.10.2010 (Annex.5) passed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority in Appeal No. 97/2010 whereby appeal filed by the respondents/plaintiffs was allowed, as well as the judgment dated 01.09.2015 (Annex.7) passed by the learned [2026:RJ-JP:12678] (2 of 12) [CW-3544/2019] Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer in Appeal/Decree/TA/7196/ 2010/Jaipur, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein, preferred against the order dated 14.10.2010 (Annex.5) was dismissed. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case urged in the writ petition are that the petitioner-Jaipur Development Authority (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘JDA’), a statutory authority constituted under the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 for planned development of the Jaipur Region, is aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.10.2010 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, whereby the appeal filed by the respondents/plaintiffs was allowed. The petitioner’s further appeal before the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 01.09.2015, affirming the findings of the Revenue Appellate Authority. The authorities below, inter alia, held that Mutation No.510 dated 03.07.1992 does not preclude the jurisdiction of the revenue court to determine Khatedari rights; that land recorded as Barani-2 and Gair Mumkin Chak with crop entries in the Khasra Girdawari is to be treated as agricultural land unless duly converted; and that the court is confined to adjudicating only the issues raised before it. It was further held that the entry of the land in the name of JDA does not affect the jurisdiction of the revenue court. The petitioner, however, contends that the plaintiffs have no right, title, or interest in the land, which is recorded as ‘Siwai Chak’ and stands validly mutated in the name of JDA vide Mutation No. 510 dated 03.07.1991, and that the plaintiffs are not in possession thereof. It is also submitted that the courts below [2026:RJ-JP:12678] (3 of 12) [CW-3544/2019] failed to properly appreciate these aspects while declining to interfere with the impugned judgment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Courts below erred in relying on isolated averments while ignoring the crucial fact that the land stood mutated and vested in the Jaipur Development Authority under Section 54 of the Act of 1982. A proper reading of the plaint as a whole would have shown that the land had already vested in the petitioner, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the Revenue Courts. He further submits that the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 has been enacted with the avowed object of ensuring planned, coordinated, and regulated development of the Jaipur region. He further contents that once land vests in the Authority, its utilization, allotment, regularization, or disposal can only be undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the schemes framed thereunder. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that by entertaining the suit and issuing directions affecting such land, the learned Revenue Courts have encroached upon the exclusive statutory domain of the Authority, thereby acting in excess of jurisdiction and in derogation of the legislative intent. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Sub Divisional Officer decided all issues in favour of the respondents; however, the question of jurisdiction of the revenue court was not adjudicated. Specifically, no finding was returned on whether the revenue court could entertain the matter in respect of land situated within the urban limits of Jaipur, same being the agricultural land. Learned counsel for the respondents further [2026:RJ-JP:12678] (4 of 12) [CW-3544/2019] submits that Section 54 of the JDA Act does not bar the exercise of power by the revenue court to adjudicate upon agricultural land situated in urban areas. Reliance has been placed upon various judgments to contend that the determinative factor is the nature of the land and not merely its location within municipal or urban limits. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the present petition is wholly misconceived and liable to be dismissed, as it seeks to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Article 227 of the Constitution in a manner akin to an appellate proceeding. He further submits that the petitioner, in essence, invites this Court to re-appreciate evidence and disturb concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below, which is impermissible in law. 6. I have heard the rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. It is an admitted position that the nature of the land in question is agricultural, which stands concurrently recorded by both the courts below, namely the Revenue Appellate Authority (Annex.5) and the Board of Revenue (Annex.7), on a detailed appreciation of the documentary evidence including khasra girdawari entries and the factual report submitted by the Tehsildar. Both the revenue courts have categorically held that, at the time of filing of the suit as well as thereafter, the land was recorded as ‘Barani’ and continued to be under cultivation, as reflected from entries showing crops such as wheat, barley, fodder and groundnut, coupled with the existence of a borewell and electricity [2026:RJ-JP:12678] (5 of 12) [CW-3544/2019] connection. It has further been concurrently observed that the land is not recorded as ‘abadi’ in the revenue records, and mere recording of the land in the name or jurisdiction of the Jaipur Development Authority does not alter its agricultural character in the absence of any lawful conversion. Significantly, this factual and legal position has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This Court, therefore, finds no reason to take a view different from the well-reasoned and concurrent findings so recorded by both the revenue courts below. 8. Proceeding further, once it stands established that the land is being put to agricultural use, it necessarily falls within the ambit of “land” as defined under Section 5(24) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, which includes land held or let for agricultural purposes or for purposes subservient thereto. The definition is wide and inclusive, and the determining factor is the nature and use of the land rather than its location within rural or urban limits. Thus, the character of the land, as borne out from the record, assumes decisive significance in determining the jurisdiction. Section 5(24) is reproduced hereunder:- “(24) "land" shall mean land which is let or held for agricultural purposes or for purposes subservient thereto or as grove land or for pasturage, including land occupied by houses or enclosures situated on a holding, or land covered with water which may be used for the purpose of irrigation or growing singhara or other similar produce but excluding abadi land; it shall include benefits to arise out of [2026:RJ-JP:12678] (6 of 12) [CW-3544/2019] land and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to earth.” 9. This Court also finds it apposite to refer to Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, which confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the revenue courts to adjudicate suits and applications of the nature specified in the Third Schedule and expressly bars the jurisdiction of other courts in respect of such matters. The legislative intent is clear and unambiguous—where the cause of action pertains to agricultural land and the relief sought is one which can be granted by a revenue court, such jurisdiction is exclusively vested in the revenue forum. Section 207 is reproduced hereunder:- “207. Suits and applications cognizable by revenue court only— (1) All suits and application 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 suitor application. 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, [2026:RJ-JP:12678] (7 of 12) [CW-3544/2019] or additional to, or is not identical with, that which the revenue court could have granted.” 10. In case of Jannat Firdosh and Anr. v. Alfu & Ors. : 2008(1) WLN 374 (Raj.), this Court while deciding the appeal from an order passed by the trial court, whereby the plaint was rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the suit was not triable by the civil court and was triable by the revenue court only, observed as under:- “26. 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.” 11. In the present case, the respondents have instituted proceedings seeking relief of permanent injunction under Sections 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 along with correction of revenue entries. Both these reliefs are specifically covered under the Third Schedule and are intrinsically connected [2026:RJ-JP:12678] (8 of 12) [CW-3544/2019] with rights arising out of agricultural land. In view of the statutory bar contained in Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, as elucidated by this Court in Jannat Firdosh (supra) the jurisdiction of the civil court stands expressly excluded, and such jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent of the parties. Furthermore, as the nature of the land can be altered only through a lawful conversion by the competent authority, and no such conversion is shown to have taken place, the dispute squarely falls within the exclusive domain of the revenue courts. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the revenue court is not only attracted but is also exclusive in nature. 12. The argument of the petitioner that the land being situated within the urban limits of Jaipur would oust the jurisdiction of the revenue court does not impress this Court as the jurisdiction cannot be determined merely on the basis of the geographical location of the land and what is determinative is the nature, character, and use of the land, coupled with the nature of relief claimed. In absence of any material to demonstrate that the land has been converted for non-agricultural purposes in accordance with Section 90A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, the land continues to retain its agricultural character, the petitioner has failed to place any document on record evidencing such conversion. 13. Equally untenable is the contention that mutation in favour of the Jaipur Development Authority or classification of the land as ‘Siwai Chak’ would ipso facto divest the revenue court of jurisdiction. It is trite law that mutation entries are fiscal in nature [2026:RJ-JP:12678] (9 of 12) [CW-3544/2019] and do not confer or extinguish title. They are maintained only for the purposes of revenue administration. Thus, such entries cannot override the substantive character of the land or the statutory scheme governing jurisdiction. 14. At this juncture, this Court also takes into consideration Section 54 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982. A plain reading of the said provision reveals that it deals with vesting and management of land in the Authority. The provision is essentially declaratory and administrative in nature. There is no express bar, nor can any implied exclusion be inferred, so as to oust the jurisdiction of the revenue courts in matters concerning agricultural land. It is a settled principle of law that exclusion of jurisdiction must be explicit or necessarily implied; in absence thereof, such exclusion cannot be presumed. Section 54 of the JDA,1982 is reproduced hereunder:- “54. Land to vest in the Authority and its disposal .- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (Rajasthan Act No. 15 of 1956), the land as defined in section 103 of that Act, excluding land referred to in sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of the said section and nazul land placed at the disposal of a local authority under section 102 A of that Act in Jaipur Region shall, immediately after establishment of the Authority under section 2 of this Act, be deemed to have been placed at the disposal of and vested in the Authority [2026:RJ-JP:12678] (10 of 12) [CW-3544/2019] which shall take over such land for and on behalf of the State Government and may use the same for the purposes of this Act and may dispose of the same by way of allotment, regularization or auction] Subject to such conditions and restrictions as the State Government may, from time to time, lay down and in such manner. as it may, from time to time.” 15. Thus, upon a cumulative consideration of (i) the admitted and concurrently held agricultural nature of the land, as recorded by both the Revenue Appellate Authority (Annex.5) and the Board of Revenue (Annex.7) on the basis of documentary evidence including khasra girdawari entries and the Tehsildar’s report, (ii) the undisputed absence of any lawful conversion of the land for non-agricultural purposes, (iii) the nature of reliefs sought, namely permanent injunction and correction of revenue entries, squarely falling within the ambit of the Third Schedule, and (iv) the statutory scheme underlying Sections 5(24) and 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, coupled with the settled legal position that mutation entries and vesting under the Jaipur Development Authority Act do not alter the intrinsic character of agricultural land nor oust revenue jurisdiction, this Court arrives at the conclusion that the jurisdiction to adjudicate the present dispute undoubtedly vests with, and is exclusively triable by, the revenue court. 16. This Court further notes that both the revenue courts have concurrently recorded findings of fact after due appreciation of [2026:RJ-JP:12678] (11 of 12) [CW-3544/2019] evidence, holding that the land is agricultural in nature and that the revenue court possesses jurisdiction. Such concurrent findings, particularly on questions of fact, cannot be lightly interfered by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 227 with unless shown to be perverse or based on no evidence, which is not the case here. 17. Additionally, the scope of interference by this Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction, is extremely limited. In this regard, reliance may be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sadhana Lodh Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., :2003 (3) SCC 524, wherein it has been held that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined to examining whether the subordinate Court has acted within its jurisdiction and does not extend to correcting errors of fact or law, or re-appreciating evidence as an appellate Court. The relevant Paragraph of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:- “7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or the Tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or re-weigh the evidence upon which [2026:RJ-JP:12678] (12 of 12) [CW-3544/2019] the inferior court or Tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision.” 18. Applying the aforesaid principle, this Court finds that both the revenue Courts have acted well within their jurisdiction, have appreciated the material on record in a proper perspective, and have arrived at findings which are neither perverse nor illegal. Therefore, no ground is made out for interference under the limited supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. 19. In view of above discussion, this Court finds no force in the instant writ petition and, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. Stay Petition also stands dismissed. (DR.NUPUR BHATI),J 115-pradeep/-