Civil courts lack jurisdiction over suits involving agricultural land, which must be adjudicated by revenue courts as per Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.

JUDGMENT :

Madan Gopal Vyas, J.

All the aforesaid Civil Revision Petitions under section 115 of CPC have been filed by the petitioners-defendents against the order dated 23.03.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Pali in Civil Original Suit Nos.64/2014, 67/2014, 69/2014, 70/2014, 66/2014, 68/2014 & 65/2014.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in the application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC, there was a specific objection on behalf of the defendents-petitioners that the suit property is an agricultural land and therefore, the civil court does not have jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit, however, the learned trial court without considering this aspect of the matter has rejected the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submits that the controversy involved in the present revision petition is no more res-integra as the co-odinate Bench of this Court in Hastimal & Ors. v. Pushpa Devi & Ors. (S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.84/2017) decided on 20.11.2020, has held that where the suit pertains to an agricultural land, the cognizance of it by any court other than a revenue court is barred under the provisions of Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and therefore, the trial court was not justified in rejecting the applications under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the learned trial court has rightly passed the orders impugned, however, he is not in a position to dispute the legal position as enunciated by this Court in Hastimal v. Pushpa Devi (supra).

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. In Hastimal v. Pushpa Devi (Supra) this Court held as under:-

"In view of the above factual and legal position, apparently as the suit land is an agricultural land as per the plaint averments, the suit was barred under the provisions of Section 207 of the Act of 1955 and trial court was, therefore, not justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners - defendants.

Consequently, the revision petition filed by the petitioners is allowed. The order dated 16.1.2017 passed by the trial court is set aside. The application filed by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is allowed. The plaint filed by the respondent No.1 - plaintiff in Civil Original Suit No.64/2015 pending before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.7, Jodhpur Metro, shall stand rejected.

In the circumstances of the case, exercising powers under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, the trial court shall return the plaint to the plaintiff for being presented before the competent Revenue Court. Looking to the fact that the suit was filed by the plaintiff in the year 2015 and the same has been remained pending before this Court for over three years, it is expected of the Revenue Court to proceed with the matter with utmost expedition."

6. In view of the above enunciated legal position, all the revision petitions are allowed. The impugned order dated 23.03.2017 is quashed and set aside. The applications under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC are allowed.

7. In exercising the power under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, the trial court shall return the plaints of the plaintiffs for presenting before the competent Revenue Court and the Revenue Court is directed to decide the same in accordance with law after providing opportunity of hearing to all the parties.

8. Looking to the fact that the suits were filed by the plaintiff in the year 2014 and the same have been remained pending before this Court for over five years, it is expected of the Revenue Court to proceed with the matter with utmost expedition.