Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.

Having heard learned Counsel of the parties, it transpires that Original Suit No. 229/1998 was launched on 7.7.1998 by Vikram Singh (plaintiff) against Bhim Bahadur and Smt. Lachhi Devi (sister of Bhim Bahadur) seeking the decree of prohibitory injunction, wherein the relief was sought that the defendants be restrained from taking unauthorised possession by way of encroachment on the disputed site. Such site has been shown to be located in Gram Bharuwala Grant, Pargana Central Doon, District Dehradun, bearing Khasra No. 615 (Minzumla New No. 87), area half bigha or 0.095 acre. Its boundaries have also been enumerated at the end of the plaint.

2. In paragraph 19 of the plaint, it was averred that the property, in question, is an agricultural land and so, it was evaluated for the purpose of Court Fee as well. On the other hand, the written statement was filed by the defendants and, in paragraph 7 of such written statement, it was pleaded that the land, in question, though has been shown to be situated in a Khasra, but there is a mention of Abadi as well and this Abadi land belongs to the defendants. The number of old house, which is in highly dilapidated condition, of the defendants was 74, which includes the property in dispute. However, in paragraph no. 16 of such written statement, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was admitted.

3. The learned Trial Court on the basis of the rival averments formulated one of the issues, inter alia, as under:

“Whether the disputed site is agricultural in nature, as has been enumerated in the plaint or it is an Abadi site, as has been elucidated in the written statement?”

4. Learned Trial Judge vide his judgment dated 12.9.2005 adjudicated the same to the effect that the disputed site is an agricultural land, and not the Abadi because no declaration under Section 143 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘UPZA & LR Act’) was ever made by any competent revenue authority. It was also shown that out of total area, 0.177 hectare was recorded as agricultural land because revenue records showed the crop of maize, wheat, etc. on such land; the area 0.040 hectare was adverted as Abadi.

5. When the appeal was preferred by the defendant Bhim Bahadur challenging the such finding of learned Trial Judge, the learned Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 11.9.2012 held that in both events, whether the disputed nature of land was Abadi or agricultural, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate on the issue because the Civil Court was well competent to hear the suit seeking injunction in such matters, hence, there was no need to formulate such an issue. With these findings, the learned Appellate Court deleted the issue no. 3 altogether, whereagainst this second appeal has been preferred by the defendant. The following substantial questions of law were formulated:

“(i) Whether the jurisdiction aspect has rightly been considered by the Court below?

(ii) Whether the Courts below erred in not considering the mandatory provisions of Section 331 of the UPZA & LR Act?”

6. This Court has rendered hearing to learned Counsel of either party.

7. Learned Counsel of the appellant has relied upon the precedent of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Chandrika Singh & Others v. Raja Vishwanath Pratap Singh, reported in 1992 AIR SC 1318, wherein it was held that the question whether the suit land is used or not used for the purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry cannot be determined by the Civil Court. It is to be determined under the provisions of Section 143 or 144 or 331 of UPZA & LR Act.

8. Further, in another precedent Kamla Prasad & Others v. Krishna Kant Pathak & Others, reported in 2007 (102) RD 378, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the question of possession of agricultural land could be decided only by the Revenue Court; Civil Court has no jurisdiction to give finding