The jurisdiction of revenue courts over agricultural land is determined by the nature and use of the land, not its administrative mutation in favor of a development authority or its location within urban limits, unless the land has been formally converted for non-agricultural purposes.

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the judgment dated 14.10.2010 (Annex.5) passed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority in Appeal No. 97/2010 whereby appeal filed by the respondents/plaintiffs was allowed, as well as the judgment dated 01.09.2015 (Annex.7) passed by the learned Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer in Appeal/Decree/TA/7196/2010/Jaipur, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein, preferred against the order dated 14.10.2010 (Annex.5) was dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case urged in the writ petition are that the petitioner-Jaipur Development Authority (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘JDA’), a statutory authority constituted under the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 for planned development of the Jaipur Region, is aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.10.2010 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, whereby the appeal filed by the respondents/plaintiffs was allowed. The petitioner’s further appeal before the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 01.09.2015, affirming the findings of the Revenue Appellate Authority. The authorities below, inter alia, held that Mutation No.510 dated 03.07.1992 does not preclude the jurisdiction of the revenue court to determine Khatedari rights; that land recorded as Barani-2 and Gair Mumkin Chak with crop entries in the Khasra Girdawari is to be treated as agricultural land unless duly converted; and that the court is confined to adjudicating only the issues raised before it. It was further held that the entry of the land in the name of JDA does not affect the jurisdiction of the revenue court. The petitioner, however, contends that the plaintiffs have no right, title, or interest in the land, which is recorded as ‘Siwai Chak’ and stands validly mutated in the name of JDA vide Mutation No. 510 dated 03.07.1991, and that the plaintiffs are not in possession thereof. It is also submitted that the courts below failed to properly appreciate these aspects while declining to interfere with the impugned judgment.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Courts below erred in relying on isolated averments while ignoring the crucial fact that the land stood mutated and vested in the Jaipur Development Authority under Section 54 of the Act of 1982. A proper reading of the plaint as a whole would have shown that the land had already vested in the petitioner, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the Revenue Courts. He further submits that the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 has been enacted with the avowed object of ensuring planned, coordinated, and regulated development of the Jaipur region. He further contents that once land vests in the Authority, its utilization, allotment, regularization, or disposal can only be undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the schemes framed thereunder. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that by entertaining the suit and issuing directions affecting such land, the learned Revenue Courts have encroached upon the exclusive statutory domain of the Authority, thereby acting in excess of jurisdiction and in derogation of the legislative intent.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Sub Divisional Officer decided all issues in favour of the respondents; however, the question of jurisdiction of the revenue court was not adjudicated. Specifically, no finding was returned o