The definition of 'land' under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act excludes mining operations from being classified as agricultural land, affecting the jurisdiction of Civil Courts.

ORDER :

REKHA BORANA, J.

1. The present four revision petitions arise out of the same cause of action and hence, were heard together and are being decided by this common order.

2. The revision petitions have been preferred against the order dated 06.07.2023 passed by the Civil Judge, Rajsamand in Civil Original Suit Nos.42/2023, 43/2023, 44/2023 & 45/2023 respectively whereby the applications under Order VII Rule 11 r.w. Section 9, CPC r.w. Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act of 1955’) as filed on behalf of defendant No.1 have been rejected and the suits in question have been held to be maintainable before a Civil Court.

3. The facts are that four suits for permanent injunction were filed by the plaintiff Shree Pustimargiya Tritiya Peeth-Pranyas, Shri Dwarkadhees Mandir, Shri Dwarkadhees Mandir, Kankroli with a prayer to restrain defendant No.1 from conducting mining operation on the respective lands in question without the consent of the plaintiff and further to restrain defendants No.2 & 3 from issuing any permission/sanction or rawanna to defendant No.1 for mining on the said lands.

4. Applications under Order VII Rule 11, CPC read with Section 207 of the Act of 1955 were filed on behalf of defendant No.1 and also by defendants No.2 & 3 in each suit with a submission that the land in question was evidently an agricultural land and hence, the suit for permanent injunction qua an agricultural land could not have been maintained before a Civil Court.

5. Learned Trial Court proceeded on to reject the applications while recording a finding to the effect that as per the Jamabandi and even as averred by the plaintiff in the plaint, nature of the land in question was recorded as ‘mining area’ ¼[kuu {ks=½ and therefore, the same could not be termed to be ‘agricultural’ and hence, the suit was maintainable before a Civil Court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that merely because sanction for mining operation had been granted qua the land in question, the nature of the same did not change and the land definitely remained to be agricultural only. He submitted that Rule 32(6) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (for short ‘the Rules of 2017’) pre-supposes a khatedari land and it is qua a khatedari land only that the licence/lease for mining is granted. The grant of lease/licence is only for a particular purpose but the nature of the land effectually does not change and it remains agricultural.

7. Counsel further submitted that admittedly, the land in question was never converted and in absence of any conversion it definitely remained agricultural and hence, the Civil Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit for relief of permanent injunction qua an agricultural land.

8. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon judgments rendered in the cases of Hastimal & Ors. Vs. Pushpa Devi & Ors., S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.84/2017 (decided on 20.11.2020), 2020/RJJD/018646; Karan Singh Chouhan & Ors. Vs. Manu Bal Sikshan Sansthan, Soorsagar Jodhpur and Ors.; 2018(3) RLW 1988(Raj.) and Smt. Premi Devi Vs. Deva Ram & Ors., 2009 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 401.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the land in question was evidently not an agricultural land firstly, because the jamabandi itself reflected/recorded the same as ^fdLe [kuu {ks=*. Secondly , mining is a civil right and once mining lease/licence had been granted qua the land in question, the nature of the land definitely changed as it was no more used for agricultural purposes. Relying upon the definition of “land” as defined under Section 5(24) of the Act of 1955, learned counsel submitted that the land in question was neither let or held for agricultural purposes and hence, could not have been termed to be an “agricultural land”. As it is settled position of law, nature of user of land becomes relevant to decide the jurisdiction of a Court and herein the land in question being u