Civil Courts Have Jurisdiction Over Easement Disputes on Agricultural Land, Rules Rajasthan High Court

Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has clarified that civil courts retain jurisdiction to hear regular suits concerning rights of way and other easements on agricultural land, dismissing a second appeal that argued such matters fall exclusively under the purview of revenue courts.

The ruling, delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yogendra KumarPurohit on April 24, 2025 , upholds the concurrent findings of both the trial court (Gram Nyayalaya, Girwa, Udaipur) and the first appellate court (Additional District Judge No. 3, Udaipur).

Case Background

The case originated when the respondents (plaintiffs in the trial court) filed a suit seeking a right of way and permanent injunction to access their agricultural fields (Araazi No. 1483, 1919). They claimed a traditional access route passed through Araazi numbers 1914, 1916, and 1917, crossing a boundary ( pali ) on Araazi No. 1509, belonging to one of the appellants' predecessors. The plaintiffs asserted they had acquired an easementary right over this path for their farming activities. They alleged that the appellant (defendant No. 3) had obstructed the path by placing stones and building a boundary.

The defendants contested the suit, raising various objections, including a crucial point regarding the civil court's jurisdiction over a dispute involving agricultural land and easement rights.

The trial court framed six issues, specifically addressing the acquisition of the easementary right (Issue No. 3) and the civil court's jurisdiction over an agricultural land dispute under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act (Issue No. 4). Both issues were decided in favor of the plaintiffs. The trial court granted the relief sought, ordering the removal of the obstruction within two months and permanently restraining future obstructions.

The appellants challenged this decision before the first appellate court, which upheld the trial court's findings on all counts, including the jurisdiction issue based on Section 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.

Appellant's Challenge: Jurisdiction Questioned

Aggrieved by the concurrent judgments of the lower courts, the appellants filed a second appeal before the High Court. The primary ground for the appeal was that disputes related to agricultural land, especially concerning rights of way, fall exclusively under the jurisdiction of revenue courts or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) as per Sections 207 and 251A read with Section 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, and the Third Schedule of the Act. They cited the High Court's own judgment in Lal Singh v. Pannalal to support their contention that civil courts lack jurisdiction in such matters.

Court's Analysis: Interpreting Tenancy Act Provisions

Justice Purohit carefully examined the relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, particularly Sections 207, 256, and 251, in light of the arguments presented.

• Section 207: This section states that all suits and applications specified in the Third Schedule shall be heard and determined only by a revenue court, and no other court shall take cognizance of such matters.
• Section 256: This section imposes a bar on the jurisdiction of civil courts regarding any matter arising under the Act for which a remedy is provided within the Act, unless otherwise specifically provided .
• Third Schedule, Part II, Item 81: This item lists "Application for decision of a dispute as to right of way or other easement or right" cognizable by a Tahsildar under Section 251.

The appellants argued that since Section 251 is mentioned in the Third Schedule (Item 81), and Section 207 grants exclusive jurisdiction to revenue courts for scheduled matters, the civil court's jurisdiction is barred.

However, the High Court highlighted the structure of Section 251 itself:

• Section 251(1): Empowers the Tahsildar to conduct a summary inquiry upon application regarding disturbance of an existing right of way or easement and order removal of the disturbance. This is the provision referenced in the Third Schedule.
• Section 251(2 ): Crucially states: "No order passed under this section shall debar any person from establishing such right or easement as he may claim by a regular suit in a competent civil court."

The Court emphasized that Section 251(2 ) specifically provides for the possibility of a regular suit in a civil court notwithstanding the Tahsildar's power under Section 251(1). Reading this alongside Section 256 (which contains the exception "Save as otherwise provided specifically by or under this Act"), the Court concluded that Section 251(2 ) acts as that specific provision within the Act that preserves the civil court's jurisdiction for deciding easementary rights through a regular suit.

Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent

Justice Purohit drew strength from the Supreme Court's judgment in Smt. Ramkanya Bai and Anr. Versus Jagdish and Ors. (AIR 2011 SC 3258), which interpreted similar provisions (Sections 131 and 257) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The Supreme Court in Ramkanya Bai held that despite the Tahsildar having power under Section 131(1) to conduct a summary inquiry regarding easements, Section 131(2) expressly reserves the right to establish such easements through a civil suit, and therefore, the bar under Section 257 (similar to Rajasthan's Section 256) does not apply to suits involving or relating to easementary rights.

The High Court found the principles laid down in Ramkanya Bai directly applicable to the present case as the relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act are pari materia (on the same subject) with the Madhya Pradesh Code.

Distinguishing Precedent

The Court also distinguished the appellant's cited case of Lal Singh Jhala , noting that it related to different sections (Sections 92A, 188, and 88 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act) which do not contain a provision similar to Section 251(2 ) explicitly allowing a regular civil suit for easementary rights.

Conclusion

Based on the combined reading of Sections 207, 256, and 251(2 ) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, and guided by the Supreme Court's interpretation in Ramkanya Bai , the High Court held that civil courts do have the jurisdiction to entertain and decide regular suits claiming rights of way or other easements on agricultural land.

Since both lower courts had correctly determined jurisdiction based on this legal position and their findings on facts were concurrent, the High Court found no substantial question of law arose for consideration in the second appeal.

Consequently, the second appeal was dismissed at the admission stage itself, affirming the civil courts' power to adjudicate easement disputes on agricultural land in Rajasthan through regular suits.

The judgment underscores the importance of carefully reading statutory provisions, especially savings clauses and exceptions, when determining the scope of a civil court's jurisdiction.