Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Lok Pal Singh, J.
Mohd. Ali - Appellant
Versus
Dinesh Chandra Bhatt - Respondent
Second Appeal No.73 of 2012
Decided On : 27-07-2017
Jurisdiction - Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act - Section 331 - Kamla Prasad case - [JURISDICTION] - [AGRICULTURAL LAND, REVENUE COURT] - [Section 331 of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951] - The court discussed the jurisdiction of the revenue court in cases related to agricultural land and the applicability of Section 331 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951. The court relied on the Kamla Prasad case to establish that a suit filed for declaration of rights in relation to agricultural land is not maintainable in the civil court and falls under the jurisdiction of the revenue court. The court concluded that the relief sought by the plaintiff was cognizable by the revenue court alone, and upheld the lower courts' decisions to return the plaintiff's plaint for presentation before the appropriate court.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and declaration of Will as null and void against the defendant, claiming ownership of agricultural land. The trial court held that the civil court had no jurisdiction to decide the suit and returned the plaintiff's plaint for presentation before the appropriate court. The first appellate court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal, leading to the second appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the relief sought by the plaintiff was cognizable by the revenue court alone, and upheld the lower courts' decisions to return the plaintiff's plaint for presentation before the appropriate court.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the civil court to decide the suit, applicability of Section 331 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951, and the maintainability of the suit for declaration of rights in relation to agricultural land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Kamla Prasad case to establish that a suit filed for declaration of rights in relation to agricultural land is not maintainable in the civil court and falls under the jurisdiction of the revenue court.
Final Decision: The second appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of rights concerning agricultural land is not maintainable in a civil court, as it falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the revenue court. The courts below correctly held that the relief sought could only be granted by revenue authorities, and the civil court lacked jurisdiction (!) (!) .
The relevant statutory provision, Section 331 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, explicitly restricts civil courts from entertaining suits related to land rights where the cause of action pertains to land records maintained by revenue authorities (!) (!) .
The relief sought by the plaintiff, which involves declaration of rights over land, is essentially a matter for revenue courts, especially since the plaintiff's name was not recorded in revenue records and the dispute involved the validity of entries made therein (!) (!) .
The courts emphasized that only revenue courts have the authority to decide disputes regarding the correctness of land records, mutation entries, and related rights, and civil courts are barred from such jurisdiction by the statutory provisions (!) (!) .
The second appeal was dismissed as it lacked merit, reaffirming that the civil court's decision to return the plaint was correct and that the revenue court was the proper forum for such disputes (!) (!) .
The judgment clarified that in cases where a person not recorded as a tenure holder seeks to challenge land entries, the appropriate remedy is to approach the revenue court, not a civil court, reinforcing the principle of jurisdictional exclusivity (!) (!) .
The legal framework and relevant jurisprudence establish that suits seeking declaration of rights over land, where the cause of action relates to land records or entries, are inherently within the domain of revenue courts, and civil courts must refrain from adjudicating such matters (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further elaboration or assistance.
1. This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 11.08.2011 and 18.08.2011 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division)/F.T.C. Haldwani in civil suit no.90 of 2008, as well as against the judgment and decree dated 30.05.2012 and 06.06.2012 passed by Additional District Judge/III F.T.C. Nainital, in Civil Appeal No.21 of 2011. Both the judgments and decree, challenged herein, render the concurrent finding, whereby the plaint filed by the plaintiff has been returned.
2. In brief, facts of the case are that the plaintiff (the appellant herein) filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and declaration of Will dated 26.04.2004 as null and void against the defendant in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Nainital, stating therein that father of the plaintiff Late Sri Mohd. Alam was the recorded tenure holder of the plot no.60, measuring 0.016 hectare, plot no.61 measuring 0.076, plot no.107 measuring 0.598 hectare, plot no.108 measuring 0.032 hectare, plot no.109 measuring 0.049 hectare and plot no.110 measuring 0.648 hectare, total measuring 1.819 hectare of khata no.15 and plot no.103 measuring 0.607 hectare, plot no.104 measuring 0.525 hectare, plot no.106 measuring 0.602 hectare, total measuring 1.734 hectare of land of khata no.14 and plot no.48 measuring 0.025 hectare, plot no.55 measuring 0.430 hectare, plot no.56 measuring 0.439 hectare, plot no.57 measuring 0.443 hectare, plot no.58 measuring 0.411 hectare, plot no.59 measuring 0.657 hectare, plot no.60 measuring 0.054 hectare, plot no.61 measuring 0.171 hectare, plot no.62 measuring 0.082 hectare, plot no.63 measuring 0.183 hectare, thus the total measurement of above land is 6.448 hectare, situated at Gram Haripur Khass, Pargana, Bhawar, Chha Khata, Tehsil Haldwani, District Nainital. Plaintiff’s father expired on 29.12.2001, leaving behind his six sons (including the plaintiff) and his wife. After death of plaintiff’s father, his legal heirs became the owner and bhumidhar of the land in suit and their names were also entered in the revenue records. It is further stated in the plaint that on 28.5.2008 when the plaintiff was looking after his property, the defendant came and asked the plaintiff to vacate the whole property on the basis of Will dated 26.4.2004 executed in favour of the defendant by plaintiff’s father. The plaintiff claimed that he is in possession over the suit property, the defendant has no right and he be restrained from interfering into peaceful possession of the plaintiff.
3. The defendant contested the suit and filed his written statement stating therein that Late Mohd. Alam had executed registered Will dated 26.04.2004 in favour of the defendant on which basis name of the defendant has been mutated in the revenue records.
4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed following issues on 19.02.2010:
(i) Whether the plaintiff is in possession over the property mentioned in the plaint? If yes, its effect?
(ii) Whether, on the basis of plaint averments, Will dated 26.04.2004 executed in favour of the defendant is liable to be declared as null and void? If yes, its effect?
(iii) Whether the defendant has caused interference in the suit property? If yes, its effect?
(iv) Whether the present suit is beyond the jurisdiction of this court? if yes, its effect?
(v) Whether the court fees paid is insufficient? If yes, its effect?
(vi) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? If yes, its effect?
(vii) Whether the suit is bad due to mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties? If yes, its effect?
(viii) Whether the suit is barred by principle of estoppel? If yes, its effect?
(ix) Whether the suit is barred by Section 41 of Special Relief Act? If yes, its effect?
(x) Relief?
5. The trial court decided issue nos.4 and 5 as preliminary issues. Issue no.5 was decided in favour of plaintiff/appellant and it was held that court fees paid is sufficient.
6. Issue no.4 was framed “Whether this court has jurisdi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
