Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 2223
2025 RJ-JP 19262
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, J.
Abhay Singh, S/o Shri Sardar Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Ranveer, S/o Late Shri Sher Singh S/o Late Shri Jagram and Anr. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 64 of 2025
Decided On : 08-05-2025
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Adv.
For the Respondents : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, Adv.
The Rajasthan Pre-emption Act, 1966 does not confer pre-emption rights for agricultural land when the claimant is not the absolute owner.
Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Pre-emption Act, 1966 - Relevance of rights to pre-emption in agricultural land - The trial court erred in dismissing the defendant's application under Order 7 Rule 11 as the plaintiff lacked absolute ownership, being only a tenant and the owner being the State - Court held that pre-emption rights do not accrue in such cases. (Paras 2, 6)
(B) Application under Order 7 Rule 11 - Dismissal of application to be underpinned by statutory provisions and ownership dynamics. (Paras 2, 6)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed a civil suit for pre-emption and permanent injunction regarding agricultural land, asserting a right to pre-empt. The defendant contended that the plaintiff was not the absolute owner and thus not entitled to pre-emption under the Act.
Findings of Court:
The trial court's dismissal of the defendant's application was erroneous as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Pre-emption Act, 1966, and the defendant's petition was upheld.
Issues: Whether the plaintiff, as a tenant, had the standing to invoke pre-emption rights concerning agricultural land owned by the State.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that pre-emption claims regarding agricultural land are not permissible under the Act if the claimant is not the absolute owner, leading to the conclusion that the application should have been allowed.
Result: Petition allowed; trial court's order set aside and plaintiff's suit dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. civil revision petition context and defendant's application (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. citations of relevant judgments (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments by plaintiff and considerations by the court (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. error in trial court's dismissal of defendant's application (Para 6) |
| 5. conclusion and order for dismissal of the plaintiff's suit (Para 7 , 8) |
Judgment :
NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, J.
Instant civil revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner-defendant (for short 'the defendant) against the order dated 28.10.2024 passed by Additional District Judge No. 1, Behror, District-Alwar (for short 'the trial Court') in civil suit No. 15/2024 titled as " Ranveer Vs. Abhay Singh and Anr. " whereby the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC.
2. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that respondent No. 1-plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff') filed a civil suit for pre- emption and permanent injunction against the defendant and respondent No. 2 with regard to agricultural land mentioned in the para No. 1 of the plaint. Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that defendant filed an application before the trial Court under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC that Rajasthan Pre-emption Act, 1966 is not applicable in agricultural land because the plaintiff is not absolute owner of the agricultural land. Owner of the agricultural land is State. Plaintiff is only the tenant but the trial Court vide order dated 28.10.2024 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendant. So, the petition filed by the defendant be allowed.
3. Learned counsel for the defendant placed reliance upon the judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of " Mohd. Noor and Ors. Vs. Mohd. Ibrahim and Ors. " passed in civil appeal Nos. 2696/1982, 6779/1983 and 4894/1993 reported in (1994) 5 SCC 562 and "Babu Ram Vs. Santokh Singh (Deceased) Thr. his Legal Representatives and Ors." passed in civil appeal No. 2553/2019 decided on 07.03.2019.
4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submitted that plaintiff has a preferential right in the agricultural land. So, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendant because the question of preferential right would be decided only after the evidence of the parties. So, the petition filed by the defendant being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff.
6. It is an admitted position that plaintiff filed a suit for pre-emption with regard to agricultural land. As per the Rajasthan Pre-emption Act, 1966 pre-emption right is not accrued for agricultural land. So, in my considered opinion, the trial Court had committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant. So, the petition filed by the defendant deserves to be allowed.
7. Accordingly, the present civil revision petition filed by the defendant is allowed and the order dated 28.10.2024 passed by the trial Court is set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed being barred by law.
8. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
