Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Naveen Kumar vs Smt. Kiran Devi @ Sanyogita @ Moti Aunty on 23 November, 2020
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
(1 of 4) [CMA-6/2019]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 6/2019
Naveen Kumar S/o Sh. Tulsiram, Aged About 47 Years, R/o 70
G , Block, Sriganganagar.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Kiran Devi @ Sanyogita @ Moti Aunty W/o Sh.
Balkrishan, R/o 6-T-42 Jawahar Nagar, Sri Ganganagar
(Deceased)
2. Neetu Puri S/o Sh. Balkrishan, R/o 6-T-42, Jawahar
Nagar, Sriganganagar.
3. Vicky D/o Sh. Balkrishan, R/o 6-T-42, Jawahar Nagar,
Sriganganagar.
4. Ramesh Kumar Soni S/o Sh. Amichand Soni, R/o Gali No.
9 Through Soni Property Dealer, Setia Colony,
Sriganganagar. (Deceased)
5. Jitendra S/o Ramesh Soni, Sriganganagar
6. Smt. Nirmala Devi W/o Sh. Ramesh Soni, Sriganganagar.
7. Hajur Singh S/o Sh. Deewan Singh, R/o Sriganganagar
Through Sh. Brijmohan Advocate, Court Premise
Sriganganagar.
8. Smt. Sushma W/o Sh. Prakshchand, R/o K Block,
Sriganganagar, Through Sh. Brijmohan Advocate, Coury
Premise Sriganganagar.
9. Dev Kumar S/o Sh. Damodardas, R/o 73 L Block,
Sriganganagar. (Deleted Dated 01-09-2005)
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 59/2019
Mahesh Kumar S/o Sh. Tulsiram, Aged About 54 Years, R/o 70 G
Block Sriganganagar.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Kiran Devi @ Sanyogita @ Moti Aunty, W/o Sh.
Balkrishan, R/o 6-T 42, Jawahar Nagar, Sriganganagar
(Deceased)
2. Neetu Puri S/o Sh. Balkrishan, R/o 6-T-42, Jawahar
Nagar, Sriganganagar.
3. Vicky D/o Sh. Balkrishan, R/o 6-T-42, Jawahar Nagar,
Sriganganagar.
4. Ramesh Kumar Soni S/o Sh. Amichand Soni, R/o Gali No.
9 Through Soni Property Dealer, Setia Colony,
Sriganganagar (Deceased)
5. Jitender S/o Ramesh Soni, Sriganganagar
6. Smt. Nirmala Devi W/o Sh. Ramesh Soni, Sriganganagar
7. Hajur Singh S/o Sh. Deewan Singh, R/o Sriganganagar
Through Sh. Brijmohan Advocate, Court Premise
Sriganganagar.
8. Smt. Sushma W/o Sh . Prakashchand, R/o K Block,
(Downloaded on 23/11/2020 at 08:39:35 PM)
(2 of 4) [CMA-6/2019]
Sriganganagar, Through Sh. Brijmohan Advocate, Court
Premise Sriganganagar.
9. Dev Kumar S/o Sh. Damodardas, R/o 73 L Block,
Sriganganagar (Deleted Dated 01-09-2005)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Aakash Kukkar (through VC).
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order 23/11/2020 These appeals are directed against judgments and decree dated 19.09.2018 passed by trial court, whereby, exercising powers under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, the plaints have been returned.
The plaintiffs filed suits for possession before the trial court with the averments that they were allotted plots of land by the housing society, however, they have been dispossessed from the plots in question.
The suits were contested by the defendants. Based on pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed four issues. On behalf of the plaintiffs, two witnesses were examined and few documents were exhibited. On behalf of the defendants, no evidence was produced.
The trial court decided the issue pertaining to the jurisdiction of the court as the first issue and came to the conclusion that as the land in question continued to be an agricultural land, the suits were barred under provision of Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, and consequently passed order for returning the plaints.
(Downloaded on 23/11/2020 at 08:39:35 PM)
(3 of 4) [CMA-6/2019]
Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently made
submissions that the trial court was not justified in deciding the issue of jurisdiction against the appellants and ordering for returning the plaints for being presented before the revenue court.
Submissions were made that the land in question was being used for housing purposes and on account of its use for non- agricultural purpose, the suits under provisions of Section 207 of the Tenancy Act were not barred and, therefore, on that count, the judgments/orders impugned deserve to be quashed and set-aside.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the material available on record.
It is not in dispute that the land in dispute continues to be recorded as an agricultural land i.e. the same has not been got converted for abadi purpose / housing purpose.
This Court in Lal Singh Jhala v. Panna Lal 2016(3) D.N.J. Rajasthan 1461, after taking into consideration various judgments on the said aspect and following judgment in the case of Premi Devi v. Deva Ram & Ors.: 2009 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 410 inter-alia came to the conclusion that the actual use of the land is inconsequential for determining the jurisdiction of the court and same has been to be decided based on the nature of the land.
The submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants have already been dealt with in the said judgment of Lal Singh Jhala (Supra) and despite the user of land for non-agricultural purposes, the court came to the conclusion that it is not the user but the nature of land, which is relevant for the purpose of determining jurisdiction of the civil/revenue court in relation to provisions of the Tenancy Act.
(Downloaded on 23/11/2020 at 08:39:35 PM)
(4 of 4) [CMA-6/2019] As admittedly the land in question is unconverted agricultural land, the trial court was justified in coming to the conclusion that suits were barred under provisions of Section 207 of the Tenancy Act, no interference is called for in the judgments impugned.
There is no substance in the appeals. The same are, therefore, dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J 4-pradeep/-
(Downloaded on 23/11/2020 at 08:39:35 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)