A Suit seeking a declaration in respect of a document of transfer of title to an agricultural land and seeking a relief of cancellation of the title transferred by the document is maintainable only in a Civil Court.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to assail the order dated 19.01.2023 passed by learned Additional District Judge (II), Dehradun, whereby Civil Revision No. 12 of 2022, preferred by the petitioner to assail the order dated 29.11.2021 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rishikesh dismissing the petitioner’s/defendant’s Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, has been rejected.

2. The respondent had preferred the aforesaid Suit No. 48/2020, wherein the petitioner was the defendant, to seek a declaration that the Gift Deed, in respect of agricultural land, executed by the Aunt of the parties late Rajkumari Padma is void. The petitioner moved an Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the premise that such a dispute could be agitated only before the Revenue Court, and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under Section 331 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The Courts below did not find merit in this submission of the petitioner, and dismissed the Application as well as the revision.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kamla Prasad and others vs. Kishna Kant Pathak and others (2007) 4 SCC 213, and, in particular, Paragraphs 12 and 13 thereof, which read as follows:-

“12. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties, in our opinion, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants deserves to be accepted. So far as abadi land is concerned, the trial Court held that Civil Court had jurisdiction and the said decision has become final. But as far as agricultural land is concerned, in our opinion, the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court were right in coming to the conclusion that only Revenue Court could have entertained the suit on two grounds. Firstly, the case of the plaintiff himself in the plaint was that he was not the sole owner of the property and defendants 10 to 12 who were pro-forma defendants, had also right, title and interest therein. He had also stated in the plaint that though in the Revenue Record, only his name had appeared but defendants 10 to 12 have also right in the property. In our opinion, both the Courts below were right in holding that such a question can be decided by a Revenue Court in a suit instituted under Section 229-B of the Act. The said section reads thus:

“229B. Declaratory suit by person claiming to be an asami of a holding or part thereof.(1) Any person claiming to be an asami of a holding or any part thereof, whether exclusively or jointly with any other person, may sue the landholder for a declaration of his rights as asami in such holding or part, as the case may be.

(2) In any suit under sub-section (1) any other person claiming to hold as asami under the landholder shall be impleaded as defendant.

(3) The provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall mutatis mutandis apply to a suit by a person claiming to be a bhumidhar, with the amendment that for the word 'landholder' the words "the State Government and the Gaon Sabha" are substituted therein.”

13. On second question also, in our view, Courts below were right in coming to the conclusion that legality or otherwise of insertion of names of purchasers in Record of Rights and deletion of name of the plaintiff from such record can only be decided by Revenue Court since the names of the purchasers had already been entered into. Only Revenue Court can record a finding whether such an action was in accordance with law or not and it cannot be decided by a Civil Court.”

4. Learned counsel for the respondent, who appears on advance notice, has countered the submissions of Mr. Vashisth, by placing reliance on the later judgment of the Supreme Court in Narendra Kumar Mittal and others vs. M/s Nupur Housing Development Pvt. Ltd. and another, 2019 10 SCALE 181. In this case, the plaintiff had filed a Civil Suit to challenge the sale-deeds executed by the vendor in favour of the third party in resp