Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN PRINCIPAL SEAT, JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.
Ram Singh S/o. Bhajan Lal – Appellant
Versus
Sahab Ram S/o. Lalu Ram, by caste Bishnoi – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 705 of 2016
Decided on : 05-03-2018
Civil Procedure Code - Order 7 - Rule 11 – Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 - Section 207 - Jurisdiction - Kindly be quashed - It is immaterial that relief asked for from civil court is greater than or additional to or is not identical with that which revenue court could have granted – Held, It has been further laid down by Humble Full Bench of this Court that relief on basis of a right of easement can only be granted by a civil court and not by a revenue court - Section 207 of Act of 1955 lays down that only those suits and applications of nature specified in Third Schedule shall be heard and determined by a revenue court – petition dismissed
The legal document discusses the jurisdictional issue concerning whether a civil court or a revenue court is the appropriate forum for resolving disputes related to easements and rights of way over land. The core legal principles highlighted are:
Jurisdiction under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955: This section specifies that only certain suits and applications listed in the Third Schedule of the Act are to be heard and decided by revenue courts. Disputes falling under these categories, including those related to rights of way or easements, are generally within the exclusive jurisdiction of revenue courts (!) (!) (!) .
Scope of Section 251 of the Act: This section allows holders of land with rights of way or easements to seek relief from the Tehsildar through a summary inquiry. Importantly, it also explicitly states that such a person retains the right to establish their easement or right through a regular civil suit in a competent court (!) (!) (!) .
Hierarchy and Overriding Effect: The provisions of Section 251(2) are given precedence over Section 207, meaning that even if a dispute falls under the category listed in the Third Schedule, the aggrieved party can still approach a civil court to establish their rights (!) (!) (!) .
Nature of Relief and Proper Forum: The relief based on a right of easement is recognized as being exclusively within the jurisdiction of civil courts. While certain disputes related to land and tenancy rights may be triable by revenue courts, claims based on easements or rights of way are to be decided by civil courts (!) (!) (!) .
Composite Nature of Claims: When a suit involves multiple causes of action—some within the jurisdiction of revenue courts and others within civil courts—the appropriate procedure is to refer the relevant issues to the revenue court, while the rest can be decided by the civil court. This ensures that each cause of action is adjudicated in the proper forum (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Legal Hierarchy and Judicial Interpretation: The Full Bench of the Court has clarified that Section 251(2) overrides Section 207, affirming that parties have the right to approach civil courts directly for establishing easements, and that the summary proceedings under Section 251 do not bar such suits (!) .
In summary, the legal principles emphasize that claims for easements or rights of way are to be decided by civil courts, and the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, particularly Sections 207 and 251, establish a framework where civil courts have the jurisdiction to hear such disputes, especially when the claim involves establishing rights that cannot be fully adjudicated through summary proceedings. The appropriate legal approach involves recognizing the overriding effect of Section 251(2) and ensuring that each cause of action is heard in the correct forum based on its nature.
1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the following reliefs :-
“(a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, order dated 07.12.2015 passed in Original Case No.5/2015 may kindly be quashed and set aside.
(b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the Suit bearing No.50/2015 filed by the plaintiff/respondent before the court of learned Civil Judge, Pilibanga, Hanumangarh may kindly be rejected as non-maintainable before the civil court.
(c) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon`ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.
(d) Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs.”
2. The instant petition has been filed against the order passed by learned court below on 07.12.2015 deciding a preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction of civil court. The facts as noticed by this court are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a civil suit for permanent injunction on the ground that the plaintiff-respondent was using a way for the last two decades to access his agricultural farm house from the land belonging to the defendant-petitioner, who are trying to obstruct the same.
3. The petitioner-defendant moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC pleading that the suit preferred by the plaintiff is barred by law as per provisions of Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 reads as follows :-
“207. Suits and applications cognizable by revenue court only—
(1) All suits and application of the nature specified in the Third Schedule shall be heard and determined by a revenue court.
(2) No court other than a revenue court shall take cognizance of any such suit or application or of any suit or application based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any such suitor application.
Explanation— If the cause of action is one in respect of which relief might be granted by the revenue court, it is immaterial that the relief asked for from the civil court is greater than, or additional to, or is not identical with, that which the revenue court could have granted.” The application was rejected by learned court below and an issue regarding the point was framed, which was also decided against the petitioner-defendant. Counsel for the petitioner-defendant has relied upon the provisions of Section 207 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, which prohibits certain suits and applications, whereby cognizance is to be taken by the revenue courts only. Counsel for the petitioner points out list of such suits and applications given in IIIrd Schedule. As per Sr. No.81 of IIIrd Schedule, the disputes regarding way or easement or right to way etc., fall under the purview of Section 207. Counsel for the petitioner has further referred to Section 251 of the Act of 1955, which reads as follows :
“251. Rights of way and other private easement— (1) In the event of any holder of land, in actual enjoyment of a right of way or other easement or right, having, without his consent, been disturbed in such enjoyment otherwise than in due course of law, the Tehsildar may, on the application of the holder of land so disturbed and after making a summary inquiry into the fact of such enjoyment and disturbance, order the disturbance to be removed or stopped and the applicant-holder to be restored to such enjoyment, notwithstanding any other title that may be set up before the Tehsildar against such restoration.
(2) 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.”
Counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 251 is pertaining to right of way or other easement, therefore, it fall in entry No.81 of Schedule-III and has to be decided in accordance with Section 207 of the Act of 1955. Counsel for the petitioner, thus, has pointed out that the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
