Rajasthan High Court: Agricultural Land in Urban Area Remains Under Revenue Court Jurisdiction Unless Formally Converted

Jodhpur, Rajasthan - The High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur, in a significant ruling, has reiterated that land recorded as agricultural in revenue records will fall under the jurisdiction of Revenue Courts for suits specified under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, even if it is situated within an urban area and is not currently used for agricultural purposes. The court emphasized that formal conversion of land use under Section 90A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, is paramount to alter its nature and, consequently, the competent court's jurisdiction.

The decision was delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yogendra Kumar Purohit on May 30, 2025, in the case of Sanjeev Choudhary Vs. Mukna Ram & Anr. (S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 244/2024), dismissing the second appeal at the admission stage.

Case Background

The appellant, Sanjeev Choudhary, had filed a suit for permanent injunction in the Civil Court, Bikaner, concerning a plot of land in Ridmalsar Purohitan , Bikaner. He claimed the land, though ancestrally agricultural (Khasra No. 57/19/02), was now within municipal limits, surrounded by developed colonies, part of a UIT-developed area, and not being used for agriculture. He sought to restrain the respondents, Mukna Ram and Annu Devi, from dispossessing him or trespassing.

The respondents contested the suit's maintainability before the Civil Court, filing an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). They argued that the land was still recorded as agricultural, and thus, any suit for injunction concerning it would lie exclusively before the Revenue Court under Sections 188 and 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.

The Civil Judge, Bikaner, by an order dated August 7, 2024, allowed the application and dismissed the plaint, finding a bar under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. This decision was upheld by the District Judge, Bikaner, in an appeal on November 21, 2024, leading to the present second appeal before the High Court.

Arguments Presented

Appellant's Contentions (Mr. J.L. Purohit, Sr. Adv.): * The disputed land, due to its location within an urbanized area and non-use for agricultural activities, should be treated as abadi (residential/urban) land. * The Urban Improvement Trust (UIT), Bikaner, had developed the surrounding area, and the land was effectively urban. * A previous suit for injunction in the Revenue Court had been withdrawn with permission to approach the Civil Court on the grounds that the land was in an abadi area. * Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act applies only to agricultural land, not land that has practically become urban. * Reliance was placed on precedents like Smt. Kaushaliya Devi , where land notified under the UIT Act was not treated as agricultural, and Kan Mal , suggesting Civil Court jurisdiction if a village is notified as abadi and actual land use is to be determined.

Respondent's Contentions (Mr. Sanjeet Purohit ): * The land remains registered as 'Khatedari' agricultural land in the appellant's name in revenue records. * Until a formal conversion order is passed, the land's character remains agricultural. * Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act explicitly bars Civil Court jurisdiction for such injunction suits concerning agricultural land. * The nature of the land (as per records), not its current use or surrounding development, determines jurisdiction. * Cited judgments such as Premi Devi , which held that State permission is mandatory for land conversion and mere non-agricultural use is insufficient, and Lal Singh Jhala and Hastimal , which affirmed Revenue Court jurisdiction for unconverted agricultural land.

High Court's Analysis and Ruling

Justice Yogendra Kumar Purohit , after careful consideration of the pleadings, lower court orders, and cited precedents, found no merit in the appellant's arguments.

The Court observed that the appellant's own plaint admitted that the land was recorded as 'Khatedari' agricultural land in his name. There was no averment that the land had been formally converted for non-agricultural use under the statutory provisions.

Key Legal Principles Applied:

Primacy of Revenue Records: The Court emphasized that the entry in revenue records showing the land as agricultural is crucial. Mere non-use for agriculture or development in the vicinity does not automatically change its legal character.

Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955: This section ousts the jurisdiction of Civil Courts for suits and applications based on causes of action for which relief can be obtained from a Revenue Court. Injunctions related to agricultural holdings are covered.

Section 90A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956: This provision, along with The Rajasthan Land Revenue (Conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes in rural area) Rules, 2007 and Rajasthan Urban Area (Permission for use of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes and allotment) Rules, 2012 , lays down the specific procedure for converting agricultural land to non-agricultural use.

The Court highlighted that Section 90A(7) explicitly states that tenancy rights over such land are extinguished, and the land is deemed placed at the disposal of the local authority, only after an order granting permission for conversion is passed.

While an area might be notified under the UIT Act (as argued by the appellant based on Kaushaliya Devi and the Explanation to Section 90A), this is merely a preliminary step. Actual conversion requires adherence to the procedure under Section 90A and the relevant rules.

Distinction of Precedents: The Court distinguished the precedents cited by the appellant. * Smt. Kaushaliya Devi was related to the applicability of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act for regularization purposes after a UIT notification, not the fundamental jurisdiction for an injunction suit where land remained agriculturally recorded. * Kan Mal involved a situation where the entire village was notified as abadi , and the determination of actual use was pending evidence. * Smt. Sarifabibi Mohamed Ibrahim (Supreme Court) pertained to the definition of "agricultural land" under Income Tax law for capital gains, which was held not to be determinative of Civil Court jurisdiction in land law matters, a distinction also noted in Premi Devi .

The High Court found the ratio of judgments like Premi Devi , Lal Singh Jhala , and Hastimal to be squarely applicable. These cases consistently hold that without formal conversion under Section 90A, agricultural land remains under the purview of Revenue Courts for matters covered by the Tenancy Act.

The Court noted from the appellant's plaint (paras 2 to 18) that the land was detailed with its old revenue Khasra number, its history of Khatedari rights, and its current recording as agricultural land in the appellant's name. The only basis for claiming Civil Court jurisdiction (para 25 of the plaint) was its location within an urban area, non-use for agriculture, and surrounding development by UIT, Bikaner.

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court concluded: > "Thus, until permission for conversion is granted under the Rules, 2012, and Section 90A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, the nature of the land does not change. In the present case, no proceedings under Section 90A and Rules, 2012 have been stated to have occurred, and the land is recorded in the revenue records under the Khatedari rights of the plaintiff/appellant. In such circumstances, the learned subordinate courts have committed no legal error in holding the plaintiff/appellant's suit to be barred by law. No substantial question of law arises in the present case."

The second appeal was dismissed at the admission stage, affirming the decisions of the lower courts. This judgment reinforces the legal position in Rajasthan that the formal process of land conversion is indispensable for changing the jurisdictional forum from Revenue Court to Civil Court for disputes concerning land recorded as agricultural. Property owners seeking to develop agricultural land within urban peripheries must ensure compliance with conversion procedures to avoid jurisdictional pitfalls.