Development Agreement Not Prima Facie 'Sale' Under S.42(b) Rajasthan Tenancy Act; Civil Court Can Adjudicate Validity of Subsequent Sale Deeds: Rajasthan High Court - 2025-05-11

Rajasthan High Court: Development Agreement Not Inherently a 'Sale'; Civil Court Jurisdiction Upheld in Land Dispute

Jodhpur, Rajasthan – The High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur, in a significant ruling, has held that a Development Agreement, particularly one that explicitly negates the transfer of ownership and is stamped accordingly, cannot be prima facie treated as a 'sale' under Section 42(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. The Court also reaffirmed that a Civil Court possesses the jurisdiction to adjudicate suits seeking a declaration that subsequent sale deeds concerning such land are void or ineffective, especially when challenged by a non-party to those deeds.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yogendra Kumar Purohit , in the S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 58/2025, dismissed the plea filed by Sukhdev Chayal challenging the trial court's refusal to reject a plaint filed by Sahara Prime City Ltd. The order, pronounced on May 9, 2025, clears the path for the suit to proceed on merits.

Case Background: A Tripartite Land Tussle

The dispute arose from a Development Agreement dated June 11, 2008, executed between Malaram (and other landowners) and Sahara Prime City Ltd. (Plaintiff/Developer) for the development of agricultural land in Bikaner. Subsequently, Malaram allegedly sold his share of the land to Sukhdev Chayal (Petitioner/Defendant No. 2) through sale deeds dated November 6, 2024.

Sahara Prime City Ltd. filed a suit in the Civil Court seeking a declaration that these sale deeds executed by Malaram in favour of Sukhdev Chayal were illegal, void, and ineffective to the extent of Sahara 's rights under the prior Development Agreement, along with a prayer for a permanent injunction.

Petitioner's Plea for Rejection of Plaint

Sukhdev Chayal , the subsequent purchaser, filed applications under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) before the trial court, seeking rejection of Sahara 's suit on primarily two grounds, which were reiterated before the High Court:

Barred by Law (Section 42(b) Rajasthan Tenancy Act): It was argued that Malaram belonged to a Scheduled Caste ('Balai'). The Development Agreement, Chayal contended, was effectively a 'sale' of agricultural land by a Scheduled Caste member to a non-Scheduled Caste entity ( Sahara , a company), rendering it void ab initio under Section 42(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Therefore, a suit based on such a void document was not maintainable.

Lack of Jurisdiction of Civil Court: Chayal asserted that the disputed land was agricultural khatedari land. Since he had become the recorded khatedar after the sale, any dispute concerning the land or the sale deeds could only be tried by a Revenue Court under Sections 207 and 256 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, not a Civil Court. Sahara , having no khatedari rights, could not challenge the sale deeds in a Civil Court.

The trial court (Additional Senior Civil Judge No. 4, Bikaner) had dismissed these applications on January 23, 2025, leading to the present revision petition.

Respondent's Counter-Arguments

Sahara Prime City Ltd., represented by its counsel, opposed the revision petition, arguing:

Development Agreement is Not a 'Sale': The agreement was specifically "For Grant Of Development Rights." Crucially, Clause 4 of the agreement stated that "ownership and legal title to the said property shall not be deemed to be conveyed under this agreement." The stamp duty paid was under Article 5(bbbb) of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, applicable to development rights, not the higher duty for a 'sale' (Article 21). Thus, Section 42(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was inapplicable.

Civil Court Has Jurisdiction: Sahara , being a non-executant to the sale deeds between Malaram and Chayal, was entitled to seek a declaration of their invalidity in a Civil Court. Relying on precedents, it was argued that Civil Courts are competent to decide the validity of registered instruments, even if they pertain to agricultural land, when the primary relief is not for declaration of khatedari rights.

High Court's Detailed Examination and Reasoning

Justice Yogendra Kumar Purohit meticulously examined the arguments and the legal provisions.

On the Nature of the Development Agreement and Section 42(b) RTA:

The Court, referring to the principles for Order VII Rule 11 CPC as laid down by the Supreme Court in Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (2020) 7 SCC 366 , emphasized that only the plaint and relied-upon documents are to be considered at this stage.

The Court observed: > "In this case, the document (Development Agreement) has been stamped at 1% and registration fee of 1% has been paid, which was considered sufficient by the Sub-Registrar, Bikaner. In such a situation, according to the Sub-Registrar, Bikaner, this case falls under Article 5(bbbb) of the agreement or memorandum of agreement list, which is not related to an agreement of sale or sale deed." (Para 29, translated)

Further, Clause 4 of the Development Agreement was pivotal: > "For the sake of clarification it is made hereby clear that the ownership and legal title to the said property shall not be deemed to be conveyed under this agreement to the assignee." (Para 32, quoting Clause 4)

The Court concluded that, prima facie, the Development Agreement was not a sale or an agreement to sell. Therefore, the restrictions under Section 42(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act (prohibiting sale of SC land to non-SC) would not prima facie apply to this document. The suit, based on this agreement, could not be dismissed at the threshold as being barred by this provision.

On Civil Court Jurisdiction:

The Court extensively discussed the jurisdiction of Civil versus Revenue Courts. It relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 2807 , which clarifies: > "Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed. But if a non-executant seeks annulment of a deed, he has to seek a declaration that the deed is invalid, or non-est, or illegal or that it is not binding on him." (Para 49, quoting Para 6 of Suhrid Singh )

Since Sahara (plaintiff) was a non-executant to the sale deeds between Malaram and Chayal, it rightly sought a declaration. The Court further cited Satyapal Anand Vs. State of M.P. (2016) 10 SCC 767 and Rajasthan High Court's own decisions in Kamla Bai Vs. Mohanlal and Maniram Chimpa Vs. Mamkori Chimpa , to hold that a Civil Court has jurisdiction to declare a registered sale deed void or ineffective, even if it pertains to agricultural land, particularly when the document is challenged as voidable and the plaintiff is not seeking a declaration of their own khatedari rights.

The Court stated: > "In the present case, the plaintiff has come to the Civil Court with a suit for declaratory relief stating that defendant no. 1 did not have the right to sell to defendant no. 2 as per the Development Agreement, and has sought relief to declare the sale deeds illegal, void, ineffective to the extent of the plaintiff... Such relief cannot be presented in the Revenue Court under Sections 207, 256 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, and prima facie, the suit does not appear to be barred by law under Sections 207, 256 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act." (Para 50, translated)

Decision and Implications

The High Court found no illegality or jurisdictional error in the trial court's order dated January 23, 2025, which had dismissed Sukhdev Chayal 's applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed, and the trial court's order was affirmed. The suit filed by Sahara Prime City Ltd. will now proceed for trial on its merits.

This judgment provides crucial clarity on the interpretation of development agreements in the context of land laws like the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and reinforces the principles governing the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in complex property disputes involving subsequent alienations.