Civil Court Can Decide Agricultural Land Partition if No Tenancy Dispute Arises Under S.242 Rajasthan Tenancy Act: Rajasthan High Court - 2025-02-10

Rajasthan High Court Clarifies Jurisdiction on Agricultural Land Partition

JODHPUR: The Rajasthan High Court, in a significant order, has clarified the jurisdictional boundaries between Civil and Revenue Courts concerning the partition of agricultural land. Upholding a trial court's decision, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur ruled that a Civil Court is competent to adjudicate a suit for the partition of agricultural land, provided there is no dispute regarding tenancy rights.

The decision came in the case of Lrs. of Late Sanwarmal Vs. Smt. Seeta Devi , where the petitioners challenged an order from the Additional District Judge, Jodhpur, which had dismissed their application to refer the matter to a Revenue Court.

---

Background of the Case

The dispute originated from a civil suit for partition (Original Civil Suit No.51/2013) filed by Smt. Seeta Devi and others. The suit sought the division of joint family properties, which included both urban property and agricultural land. The trial court framed several issues, including one concerning the partition of the agricultural land.

The legal heirs of the late Sanwarmal (petitioners) filed an application arguing that any issue related to the partition of agricultural land falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. When the trial court dismissed this application on October 24, 2024, the petitioners approached the High Court through a writ petition.

---

Arguments Before the High Court

• Petitioners' Argument: Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. J.K. Bhaiya, contended that the trial court erred by not referring the issue to the Revenue Court. Citing previous judgments, he argued that matters of agricultural land partition must be adjudicated by revenue authorities.

• Respondents' Argument: Representing the respondents, Mr. O.P. Mehta and Mr. V.D. Gaur submitted that the lawsuit was a "suit for partition simplicitor." They emphasized that there was no dispute regarding tenancy rights over the agricultural land. Therefore, they argued, the Civil Court was fully empowered to decide the matter, and the trial court's order was legally sound.

---

Court's Analysis and Interpretation of Law

Justice Mathur centered his analysis on Section 242(1) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 . The court highlighted the specific language of the statute, which mandates referral to a Revenue Court only when a "question regarding tenancy rights arises."

The judgment included a key excerpt from the provision:

“ If in any suit relating to agricultural land instituted in a civil court, any question regarding tenancy rights arises... the civil court shall frame an issue on the plea of tenancy and record to the appropriate revenue court for the decision of that issue only. ”

The Court observed that the issues framed by the trial court did not raise any dispute over tenancy. The core issue was simply the division of property among co-owners.

Distinguishing the present case from precedents cited by the petitioners, Justice Mathur noted:

“ So far as the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners are concerned, the same are clearly distinguishable on the ground that in these two cases, the declaration of Khatedari rights have been sought and therefore, the issues framed therein have been rightly sent for adjudication by the revenue courts, whereas in the present case, there is no dispute with respect to the tenancy... ”

The Court concluded that in a straightforward partition suit without any challenge to tenancy or Khatedari rights, the Civil Court's jurisdiction remains intact, even if the property includes agricultural land.

---

Final Decision

Finding no illegality or jurisdictional error in the trial court's order, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. The court held that the petition was "bereft of any force" and affirmed that the Civil Court has absolute jurisdiction to proceed with the partition suit. This ruling reinforces a crucial legal principle, preventing procedural delays caused by incorrectly invoking the jurisdiction of Revenue Courts in simple partition matters.