Civil courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate partition of agricultural land when no tenancy dispute exists, as per Section 242(1) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.

Order :

1.Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 24.10.2024 passed by Additional District Judge No.6, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur in Original Civil Suit No.51/2013 (N.C.V. No.14935/2014) titled as “Sita Devi V/s Sanwarmal” whereby the application preferred by late Sanwarmal Sharma for referring the matter to the revenue court on the issues framed on the agricultural land has been dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that plaintiffs preferred a suit seeking decree of partition, which is pending consideration before the Civil Court. He submits that as per the issues framed by the learned trial court, one of the issues pertains to the partition of the land, which is agriculture in nature. Learned counsel submits that the issue with respect to the partition of agriculture land is required to be sent to the revenue court for its adjudication. To buttress his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment dated 16.02.2015 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2866/2014 (Modu Ram V/s Board of Revenue & Ors.) and judgment dated 03.12.2024 passed by a coordinate bench of this court in S.B.Civil First Appeal No.673.2024 ( Sua Lal V/s Kanhi & Ors.). The learned trial Court has committed an error while rejecting the application preferred by the petitioners. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition filed by the petitioners may be allowed and the order dated 24.10.2024 may be quashed and set aside.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no dispute with respect to the nature of the land, rather a suit seeking a decree of partition simplicitor has been filed. He submits that there is no tenancy dispute between the parties, therefore, the matter may not be referred to the revenue court for deciding the issue seeking a decree of partition of an agricultural land and therefore, the learned trial court has not committed any illegality, infirmity and jurisdictional error while passing the order dated 24.10.2024. He prays that no interference is warranted in the order passed by the learned trial court, therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioners may be dismissed.

5. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and also gone through the relevant record of the case including the order dated 24.10.2024 passed by the trial court.

6. It will be useful to reproduce Section 242(1) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 as under :-

“242. Procedure when plea of tenancy rights raised in Civil Courts-

(1) If in any suit relating to agricultural land instituted in a civil court, any question regarding tenancy rights arises and such question- has not previously been determined by a revenue court of competent jurisdiction, the civil court shall frame an issue on the plea of tenancy and record to the appropriate revenue court for the decision of that issue only.

Explanation- A plea of tenancy which is clearly untenable and intended solvely to post the jurisdiction of the civil court shall not be deemed to raise a plea of tenancy”.

(emphasis supplied)

7. This court also deems it appropriate to quote the issues framed by learned trial court vide order dated 15.09.2016 in the suit instituted by the plaintiffs-respondents, which reads as under:-

8.The admitted facts in the present case are that the parties have some dispute with regard to partition of the properties in question. It is also an admitted position that one of the properties is an agricultural land for which an issue has been framed by the trial court and the issue No.1 includes urban land as well as agricultural land too for which partition has been sought for.

9. It is a settled law that civil court is having jurisdiction to decide the question of partition of the properties where no revenue dispute is involved. In the present case, since the issues framed do not reflect any dispute with regard to the tenancy of the