UDAY UMESH LALIT, D.Y.CHANDRACHUD
Pyarelal – Appellant
Versus
Shubhendra Pilania (minor) Thr. Natural Guardian (father) Pradeep Kumar Pilania – Respondent
When khatedari land is used for residential purposes, the jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes depends on the nature of the relief sought and the applicable statutory provisions.
If the dispute involves the declaration of khatedari rights, the rights of possession, or the validity of land transfer related to khatedari holdings, the revenue court or a specialized revenue tribunal typically has exclusive jurisdiction. This is because the relevant land laws, such as tenancy or land reform acts, explicitly specify that matters concerning khatedari rights are to be tried by revenue courts. These laws emphasize that until khatedari rights are decreed by the revenue court, civil courts generally do not have jurisdiction to decide on such rights or related disputes (!) .
However, if the dispute is purely about ownership, possession, or transfer of the land used for residential purposes, and does not involve the declaration of khatedari rights or tenancy rights, then civil courts have jurisdiction. Civil courts are empowered to try cases related to property rights, ownership, and possession, provided there is no specific statutory bar (!) (!) (!) .
In cases where the land is used for residential purposes but the dispute involves the validity of a transfer or a claim of ownership that is not directly related to khatedari or tenancy rights, civil courts would generally have jurisdiction, as these issues are of a civil nature (!) .
In summary, for khatedari land used for residential purposes: - Civil courts have jurisdiction when the dispute is about ownership, possession, or transfer not involving the declaration of khatedari rights. - Revenue courts or specialized tribunals have exclusive jurisdiction when the dispute involves the declaration of khatedari rights, tenancy rights, or matters explicitly covered by land reform or tenancy laws (!) .
ORDER
Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. - Leave granted.
2. The appeals in the present case arise from two orders dated 13 November 2014 and 2 March 2015 of the Rajasthan High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. By an order dated 13 November 2014, the learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the revision petition filed by the respondents. The challenge was to an order dated 26 August 2013 of the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sikar rejecting the objection to the jurisdiction of the civil court to try the suit filed by the appellant. The appellant filed a petition for review before the High Court. The learned single Judge dismissed the petition on 2 March 2015.
3. The family tree of the appellant is depicted below:
The Sub-Registrar and Tehsildar are respondent Nos. 4 and 5 respectively.
4. The appellant alleged that on the death of Mangalram and Rukma Devi, the agricultural land in question devolved upon respondent No. 3 and his sister Kushali Devi (mother of the Plaintiff) in equal shares. Kushali Devi died intestate and her share devolved upon her children the appellant and respondent Nos. 7 to 10 in equal measure. The appellant and respondent Nos. 7 to
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.