Allowed

Mohkam S/O Yadram, v. Uttam Singh S/O Tejsingh

Rajasthan HC11 Nov 2025CR/206/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against rejection of defendants' Order VII Rule 11 CPC application in a permanent injunction suit. The suit land remained recorded agricultural land without lawful land-use conversion; jurisdiction lay with the revenue courts under Section 207 Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The impugned order was set aside and the plaint rejected.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 07-05-2025 set aside; Order VII Rule 11 CPC application allowed and regular civil suit No. 82/2024 rejected.

Mohkam S/O Yadram, Vs Uttam Singh S/O Tejsingh — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:45250]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 206/2025

¶4

Mohkam S/o Yadram, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Abhora, Tehsil Rarah, District Deeg.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Uttam Singh S/o Tejsingh, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Abhora, Tehsil Rarah, District Deeg (Raj.).

¶8

Vipin S/o Pritam, Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of Abhora, Tehsil Rarah, District Deeg (Raj.).

¶9

Uday Singh S/o Prahlad, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of Abhora, Tehsil Rarah, District Deeg (Raj.).

¶10

Badan Singh S/o Yadram, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Abhora, Tehsil Rarah, District Deeg (Raj.)

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nikhlesh Katara, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Karanpal Singh, Adv.

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS

¶14

Order

¶15

11/11/2025

¶16

1- ;kph@izfroknh dh vksj ls ;g fuxjkuh ;kfpdk varxZr /kkjk 115 lh0ih0lh0] fopkj.k U;k;ky;&fo}ku ofj"B flfoy U;k;k/kh'k] dqEgsj] ftyk Hkjriqj }kjk nhokuh okn la[;k&82@2024] muokuh izdj.k mRre flag o vU; cuke eksgde o vU; esa ikfjr vk{ksfir vkns'k fnukafdr 07-05-2025 ls O;fFkr gksdj is'k dh xbZ gS] ftlds ek/;e ls ;kph@izfroknh dk vkosnu i= vUrxZr vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 lh-ih-lh- fujLr fd;k x;k gSA

¶17

2- mHk; i{k dh cgl lquh xbZ] i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA

¶18

3- ;ksX; vf/koDrk ;kph@izfroknh dk fuosnu gS fd okn esa of.kZr vfHkdFkuksa ds vk/kkj ij gh Lohdr :i ls oknxzLr Hkwfe df"k Hkwfe gS]

(2 of 5)

[2025:RJ-JP:45250]

[CR-206/2025]

ftldk fu;ekuqlkj Hkw&mi;ksx ifjorZu ugha gqvk gS] blh Hkwfe ds laca/k esa oknhx.k@v;kphx.k dh vksj ls jktLo U;k;ky;&mi[k.M vf/kdkjh] dqEgsj] ftyk Mhx esa /kkjk 251 ,oa 251, jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e ds rgr fnukad 09-05-2024 dks vkosnu izLrqr dj jktLo U;k;ky; dk {ks=kf/kdkj bl Hkwfe ds laca/k esa gksuk Lohdkj fd;k gSA okn LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk dk gS] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa /kkjk 207 ,oa 256 jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj izdj.k dh lquokbZ dk {ks=kf/kdkj jktLo U;k;ky; dks gS] flfoy U;k;ky; dk {ks=kf/kdkj oftZr gSA ysfdu blds ckotwn fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk rF;ksa ,oa fof/kd izko/kkuksa ds foijhr vk{ksfir vkns'k ikfjr fd;k gS] tks vikLr gksus ;ksX; gSA

¶23

4- blds foijhr fo}ku vf/koDrk v;[email protected] us tkfgj fd;k gS fd fookfnr df"k Hkwfe ds laca/k esa 40 lky igys i{kdkjksa ds chp esa jkthukek gqvk Fkk vkSj mlds eqrkfcd fufeZr edkuksa dk vknku&iznku gksrs gq, 12 QqV dh Hkwfe dks mijksDr edkuksa esa vkokxeu gsrq jkLrs ds fy, j[kk x;k Fkk] yEcs le; ls bl Hkwfe ij dksbZ df"k ugha gks jgh gS rFkk vkoklh; ifjlj cus gq, gSa] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa izdj.k dh lquokbZ dk {ks=kf/kdkj flfoy U;k;ky; dks gS] vr% vk{ksfir vkns'k fof/klEer gksuk crkrs gq, izLrqr fuxjkuh ;kfpdk fujLr fd, tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA 5- geus mHk; i{k dh vksj ls izLrqr rdksZa ij fopkj fd;k rFkk v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fnukad 07-05-2025 dk voyksdu fd;k

¶24

6- okn esa of.kZr vfHkdFkuksa ds vk/kkj ij ;g Lohdr fLFkfr gS fd oknxzLr Hkwfe] df"k Hkwfe gS vkSj mldk fu;ekuqlkj Hkw&mi;ksx ifjorZu ugha gqvk gSA vkoklh; mi;ksx gksuk crkrs gq, bl U;k;ky; dk {ks=kf/kdkj gksuk vfHkdfFkr fd;k x;k gSA

¶25

7- ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk Eldeco Housing and

¶26

Indurstries Ltd. Vs. Ashok Vidyarthi and Ors. 2023 INSC 1043 ,oa Soumitra Kumar Sen Vs. Shyamlal Kumar Sen & Ors. 2018 DNJ (SC) 769 esa ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 lh-ih-lh- ds

[2025:RJ-JP:45250]

[CR-206/2025]

(3 of 5)

vkosnu ij fopkj djrs le; ek= oknh ds vfHkdFkuksa o okni= ds lkFk izLrqr nLrkostksa ij gh fopkj fd;k tk ldrk gSA

¶31

8- U;kf;d fu.kZ; Lal Singh Jhala Vs. Panna Lal 2016(0) Supreme (Raj.) 905 ds ekeys esa jktLFkku Hkw&jktLo vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼ftls vkxs ^^vf/kfu;e&1956^^ dgk tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 103] jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e&1955 dh /kkjk 5¼24½ rFkk vU; lqlaxr izko/kkuksa ij fopkj djus ds mijkUr fuEukuqlkj O;oLFkk izfrikfnr dh x;h gS&

¶32

"A bare look at the above two definitions, which have been indicated in two provisions relating to the Acts which deals with the land and abadi land, clearly reveals that till such time that the 'land' is not converted into 'abadi land', the same continuous to be land i.e. agriculture land with consequences as provided under both the Acts.

¶33

................it is well settled that pertaining to an unconverted agriculture land, the suit would lie before the Revenue Court only and the Civil Court's jurisdiction would be barred under the provisions of section 207 of the Tenancy Act."

¶34

9- bl U;k;ky; }kjk Rama Kant Khetan Vs. Sri Ram Het Gupta & Ors. 1985 RLR 281 ds ekeys esa ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS fd tc rd df"k Hkwfe dk Hkw&mi;ksx ifjorZu ugha gksrk gS] rc rd mldh izdfr d`f"k Hkwfe gh jgsxhA

¶35

10blh izdkj bl U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; Premi Devi Vs. Deva Ram & Ors. 2009 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 410 esa Hkh leku izd`fr dk fookn mRiUu gqvk Fkk rFkk U;k;ky; }kjk iSjk la[;k&3] 7 rFkk 8 esa tks vfHker izdV fd;k x;k] og lqlaxr gS tks fuEukuqlkj gS&

¶36

"3. According to learned counsel for the appellant though the land is recorded as agricultural but it is surrounded by the Abadi land has come within the Municipal area of Jodhpur and further more is that the land in question was never cultivated, therefore, the civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit relating to the land in question.

(4 of 5)

[2025:RJ-JP:45250]

[CR-206/2025]

In view of the above reasons, the aforesaid judgments have no application to the facts of the case. The law in Rajasthan is very clear and it excludes the agricultural land from the jurisdiction of the civil Court and there are law by which the agricultural land can be converted into Abadi land and mere fact that the agricultural land holder himself put the land for nonagricultural purpose is not sufficient for conversion of land from agricultural land to Abadi land. In Rajasthan, as per law, no agricultural land holder (Khatedar Tenant) can convert the agricultural land to Abadi land without permission of State. The taxation law may have deeming clauses for taxing the transaction and valuing the property, but same cannot be accepted while determining the jurisdiction of the civil Court qua the jurisdiction of revenue Court.

¶41

Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the defendant never contended that the land was cultivated, therefore it is not agricultural land. The argument is of no consequence in view of the fact that the nature of land is not dependent upon the fact that whether it is cultivated or not. When it is admitted case that land was not converted to Abadi from agricultural land and it is recorded as agricultural land in the revenue record, there is no merit in this appeal."

¶42

11blh izdkj blh U;k;ky; }kjk S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3658/2018 Om Prakash Vs. Smt. Mishro & Ors. esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 14-08-2025 ds iSjk la[;k&19 esa fuEu O;oLFkk izfrikfnr dh xbZ gS%&

¶43

^^19- ;fn dksbZ [kkrsnkj viuh df"k Hkwfe dks vdf"k iz;kstukFkZ mi;ksx djuk pkgrk gS rks vf/kfu;e&1956 dh /kkjk 90, ds rgr fofgr izfdz;k viuk;h tkdj rFkk uxj lq/kkj dj o izhfe;e vkfn vnk dj l{ke izkf/kdkjh@jkT; ljdkj ls Hkw&:ikUrj.k vkns'k izkIr fd;k tkuk vko';d gS rFkk ,sls vkns'kksa ds fcuk vdf"k iz;kstukFkZ df"k Hkwfe dk mi;ksx fd;k tkrk gS rks /kkjk 91¼1½ Hkw&jktLo vf/kfu;e ds rgr mlds fo:) csn[kyh lfgr vU; fof/k&lEer dk;Zokgh dh tk ldrh gSA orZeku ekeys esa Hkh oknh dh vksj ls df"k Hkwfe dk :ikUrj.k@Hkw&mi;ksx ifjorZu ugha djk;k gS] mlds ckotwn mldk ;g vfHkdFku fd bl Hkwfe dks vdf"k iz;kstukFkZ ekuk

(5 of 5)

[2025:RJ-JP:45250]

[CR-206/2025]

tkos] ;g fuosnu fof/kd izko/kkuksa ds mYya?ku esa gS rFkk bls flfoy U;k;ky; vFkok laoS/kkfud U;k;ky; }kjk ekU;rk ;k Lohd`fr ugha nh tk ldrhA**

¶48

12pwafd oknxzLr Hkwfe df"k Hkwfe ls vkoklh; iz;kstukFkZ ifjofrZr ugha gqbZ gS rFkk tekcanh esa Hkh ;g Hkwfe vkt Hkh df"k Hkwfe ds :i esa gh ntZ gS] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa oknxzLr Hkwfe lHkh iz;kstuksa ds fy, d`f"k Hkwfe gh ekuh tk;sxh rFkk /kkjk 207 jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj izdj.k dh lquokbZ dk {ks=kf/kdkj bl U;k;ky; dks ugha gSA

¶49

13fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk tks vk{ksfir vkns'k fnukad 07-05-2025 dks ikfjr fd;k x;k gS] og iw.kZr% rF;ksa o fof/k ds foijhr gS] vr% mls vikLr djrs gq, rFkk ;kph&izfroknh dk vkosnu varxZr vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 lh-ih-lh- Lohdkj djrs gq, izR;FkhZx.k&oknhx.k dk fopkj.k U;k;ky; esa yafcr fu;fer nhokuh okn la[;k&82@2024 ukeatwj fd;k tkrk gSA

¶50

14blh vuqlkj izfroknh&;kph dh vksj ls izLrqr fuxjkuh ;kfpdk Lohdkj dj fuLrkfjr dh tkrh gS rFkk LFkxu vkosnu o vU; vkosnu] ;fn dksbZ yafcr gksa] rks os mDrkuqlkj fuLrkfjr fd;s tkrs gSaA

¶51

(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J

¶52

MANOJ ADWANI /23

Mohkam S/O Yadram, v. Uttam Singh S/O Tejsingh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohkam S/O Yadram, v. Uttam Singh S/O Tejsingh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Kumar Thakurv S/O Shri Lal Singh, Vs Smt. Gayatri a. Rathore

Gopal Lal Sain S/O Shri Ram Kishore Sain, Vs Jaipur Municipal Corporation

Smt. Nafeesa W/O Late Nuruddin Vs Shamuddin S/O Peer Mohammad

Mamta Singh D/O Surendra Pal Singh W/O Late Prd Pradhuman Singh, Vs Bhanu Prakash Yeturu

Mahaveer Prasad Son of Shri Ramkishore @ Lala, Vs Dinesh Kumar Son of Shri Ramkishore @ Lala

Babu Lal S/O Bhura Kumhrawat Vs Parma Lal S/O Bhura Kumhrawat