Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 2232
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
For the Petitioner: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, Adv.
The Rajasthan Pre-emption Act, 1966 does not grant pre-emption rights to tenants over agricultural land, which is owned by the State.
Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Pre-emption Act, 1966 - Section not applicable to agricultural land - Revision petition against dismissal of application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - The trial court erred in holding that pre-emption rights accrued for agricultural land while the plaintiff was only a tenant and the rightful owner is the State - The application by the defendant was wrongly dismissed. (Paras 2, 6, 7)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - Application for rejection of plaint based on the jurisdictional ground is maintainable - The trial Court's dismissal highlighted misapplication of statutory provisions. (Paras 3, 4, 5)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking pre-emption and permanent injunction regarding agricultural land, arguing preferred rights. The defendant contended the inapplicability of the Rajasthan Pre-emption Act due to the plaintiff's limited rights as a tenant.
Findings of Court:
The trial Court incorrectly dismissed the defendant's application, which should have led to the suit's dismissal based on law barring the claim for agricultural land pre-emption.
Issues: The main issues were regarding the applicability of the Rajasthan Pre-emption Act to agricultural land and the rights of tenants versus landowners.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Rajasthan Pre-emption Act does not conflate tenant rights with ownership, emphasizing that statutory limits dictate the suit's bar against the plaintiff, hence the trial Court's decision was erroneous.
Result: Civil revision petition allowed; the trial Court's order was set aside and the plaintiff's suit dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. civil suit concerning pre-emption rights on agricultural land. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. citations of relevant supreme court judgments. (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments against the petition highlight rights of the plaintiff. (Para 4) |
| 4. court's evaluation of the applicability of pre-emption in agricultural lands. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 5. ruling in favor of the defendant, dismissing 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.
