[2026:RJ-JP:11734] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 784/2026 1. Nadan Singh, Son Of Girraj, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Badawajidpur, Tehsil Nadoti, District Karauli, Rajasthan. 2. Vikram Son Of Nadan Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Badawajidpur, Tehsil Nadoti, District Karauli, Rajasthan. 3. Shivraj, Son Of Ramswaroop, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Badawajidpur, Tehsil Nadoti, District Karauli, Rajasthan. 4. Ramswaroop, Son Of Girraj, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Badawajidpur, Tehsil Nadoti, District Karauli, Rajasthan. ----Appellants Versus 1. Girraji, Wife Of Ramkishore, Aged About 70 Years, R/o Badawajidpur, Tehsil Nadoti, District Karauli, Rajasthan. 2. Balveer, Son Of Ramkishore, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Badawajidpur, Tehsil Nadoti, District Karauli, Rajasthan. 3. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, District Karauli. 4. Tehsildar, Tehsil Nadoti, District Karauli. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Chauhan, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, Adv. Mr. Rahul Sharma, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Judgment / Order 19/03/2026 1- vihykFkhZx.k&izfroknhx.k ¼vkxs ^^izfroknhx.k^^ dgk tkosxk½ }kjk ;g nhokuh fofo/k vihy vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k dze&1] fg.MkSuflVh] ftyk&djkSyh }kjk fu;fer nhokuh vihy [2026:RJ-JP:11734] (2 of 9) [CMA-784/2026] la[;k 33@2025 esaikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 26-11-2025 ls O;fFkr gksdj is'k dh gS] ftlds ek/;e ls fo}ku izFke vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; fnukad 30-10-2025 dks vikLr djrs gq, {ks=kf/kdkj ds fcUnq ij fook|d fojfpr djrs gq, lk{; ys[kc) djus ds mijkUr fookn fuLrkj.k djus dk funsZ'k nsrs gq, ekeyk izfrizsf"kr fd;kA 2- fo}ku vf/koDrk izfroknhx.k rFkk izR;FkhZx.k&oknh dh cgl lquh x;h] vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA 3- oknhx.k tks fj'rs esa ekrk rFkk iq= gSa] }kjk fopkj.k U;k;ky; flfoy U;k;k/kh'k] uknkSrh esa vkns'kkRed LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk dk okn izLrqr dj ;g vfHkdfFkr fd;k fd oknhx.k ds dCts o vf/kdkjksa dh lEifRr [kljk uEcj 809 jdck 0-35 gsDVs;j xzke ckM+kokthniqj rglhy&uknkSrh ftyk&xaxkiqj flVh esa fLFkr gS vkSj blh vuqlkj jktLo fjdkWMZ esa Hkh bldk banzkt gSA izfroknhx.k }kjk mudh bl Hkwfe esa vfrdze.k vkSj gLr{ksi fd;s tkus ij LFkk;h o vkKkid fu"ks/kkKk pkgh] ftl ij izfroknhx.k dh vksj ls vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 lh-ih-lh- ds rgr vkosnu izLrqr dj fuosnu fd;k fd ekeyk d`f"k Hkwfe ls lacaf/kr gS] LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk ds laca/k esa ek= jktLo U;k;ky; gh izdj.k dh lquokbZ djus gsrq l{ke gS] flfoy U;k;ky; dk {ks=kf/kdkj oftZr gSA fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk izfroknhx.k ds vkosnu vUrxZr vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 lh-ih-lh- dks Lohdkj dj oknhx.k dk okn vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 lh-ih-lh- ds rgr ukeatwj fd;k x;k] ijUrq vihyk/khu vkns'k ds ek/;e ls fo}ku vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k fd d`f"k Hkwfe dk mi;ksx vkoklh; iz;kstu ls gks jgk gS ;k ugha] ;g fcUnq rF;ksa o fof/k dk fefJr [2026:RJ-JP:11734] (3 of 9) [CMA-784/2026] iz'u gS] vr% bl ij lk{; ys[kc) djus ds mijkUr fu.kZ; ikfjr djsaA 4- fo}ku vf/koDrk izfroknhx.k dk fuosnu gS fd Lo;a oknh ds vfHkdFkuksa] layXu nLrkostksa ds vuqlkj oknxzLr Hkwfe dk d`f"k Hkwfe gksuk izekf.kr gS] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e] 1955 ¼ftls vkxs ^^vf/kfu;e&1955^^ dgk tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 207 ds vuqlkj ekeyk jktLo U;k;ky; }kjk lquokbZ ;ksX; gS] flfoy U;k;ky; dk {ks=kf/kdkj oftZr gSA tcfd fo}ku vf/koDrk oknh i{k dk fuosnu gS fd ekSds ij mijksDr d`f"k Hkfe ij vkoklh; fuekZ.k gks j[kk gS] dksbZ dk'r ugha gks jgh gS] vr% miHkksx ds vk/kkj ij ;g vkoklh; Hkwfe gS] bls d`f"k Hkwfe ugh ekuk tk ldrkA fodYi esa ;g Hkh fuosnu fd;k fd ;g fcUnq rF; o fof/k dk fefJr iz'u gS] vr% lk{; ds mijkUr gh fu.khZr gks ldrk gS] vUr esa vihyk/khu vkns'k fnukafdr 26-11-2025 dks fof/k&lEer gksuk crkrs gq, ;g vihy [kkfjt fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA 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 fopkj djrs le; ek= oknh ds vfHkdFkuksa o okni= ds lkFk izLrqr nLrkostksa ij gh fopkj fd;k tk ldrk gSA orZeku ekeys esa ;g fufoZokn gS fd oknxzLr d`f"k Hkwfe dk xSj Ñf"k iz;kstukFkZ :ikUrj.k ugha gqvk gSA 6- 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^^ [2026:RJ-JP:11734] (4 of 9) [CMA-784/2026] 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." 7- 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 8- 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 and for that purpose also, in the State of Rajasthan, there [2026:RJ-JP:11734] (5 of 9) [CMA-784/2026] 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." 9- 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 [2026:RJ-JP:11734] (6 of 9) [CMA-784/2026] 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." 10. 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 [2026:RJ-JP:11734] (7 of 9) [CMA-784/2026] 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 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." 11- 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 [2026:RJ-JP:11734] (8 of 9) [CMA-784/2026] 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 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^^ 12- orZeku ekeys esa oknxzLr Hkwfe d`f"k Hkwfe gS rFkk fofgr vkSj fu/kkZfjr izfdz;k ds vuqlkj vd`f"k iz;kstukFkZ Hkw&mi;ksx ifjorZu ugha gqvk gSA ekeyk LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk ds laca/k esa gS] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa mijksDr U;kf;d fu.kZ; esa izfrikfnr O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj {ks=kf/kdkj ds n`f"Vdks.k ls ;g Hkwfe d`f"k Hkwfe gh ekuh tk;sxhA ^^vf/kfu;e&1955^^ dh /kkjk&207 ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj izdj.k dh lquokbZ flfoy U;k;ky; dks ugha gksdj jktLo U;k;ky; dks gh gS] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa vihyk/khu vkns'k 26-11-2025 rF;ksa o fof/k ds vuq:i ugha gS tks vikLr gksus ;ksX; gSA 13- vr% vihykFkhZx.k&izfroknhx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g vihy Lohdkj dh tkdj vihyk/khu fu.kZ; fnukad 26-11-2025 vikLr fd;k tkrk gS] ifj.kker% fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k [2026:RJ-JP:11734] (9 of 9) [CMA-784/2026] fnukad 30-10-2025 dh iqf"V dh tkrh gS] LFkxu izkFkZuk i= Hkh mDr izdkj ls fuLrkfjr ekuk tkrk gSA 14- fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd oknhx.k dh vksj ls ;fn fuosnu fd;k tkrk gS rks l{ke U;k;ky; esa okn izLrqr djus gsrq mls ykSVk;k tkosA (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J Mittal /11