Scribd
Upload
62 views

Miscellaneous

This document is a submission to a professor regarding Land Laws including the Land Acquisition Act. It summarizes a legal case involving a dispute over agricultural land inherited by daughters after their father's death. The daughters filed a suit in revenue court seeking a declaration of their khatedari rights to 1/6th share of the land each, and cancellation of a sale deed executed by their brothers. The submission argues that the revenue court has proper jurisdiction over the case based on provisions of the Tenancy Act and precedents, as the primary relief sought is a declaration of tenancy rights. It requests that the writ petition filed challenging the revenue court's jurisdiction be dismissed.

Uploaded by

himanshu kaushik
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
62 views

Miscellaneous

This document is a submission to a professor regarding Land Laws including the Land Acquisition Act. It summarizes a legal case involving a dispute over agricultural land inherited by daughters after their father's death. The daughters filed a suit in revenue court seeking a declaration of their khatedari rights to 1/6th share of the land each, and cancellation of a sale deed executed by their brothers. The submission argues that the revenue court has proper jurisdiction over the case based on provisions of the Tenancy Act and precedents, as the primary relief sought is a declaration of tenancy rights. It requests that the writ petition filed challenging the revenue court's jurisdiction be dismissed.

Uploaded by

himanshu kaushik
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 6

JAI NARAIN VYAS UNIVERSITY, JODHPUR

Faculty of Law

Session: 2021-22

Subject: LAND LAWS INCLUDING LAND ACQUISITION ACT

Submitted To: Submitted By:

Prof. Mudit Bachhawat

Roll no.

17BAL51250

S
emester:

B.A.LLB. Xth sem


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my gratitude to all those who helped and


guided me in making this project. First of all, I am really grateful to
Professor who gave me an opportunity to work on the chosen topic
and gave me his valuable guidance and inputs. Also, I would like to
thank my friends and seniors who supported me throughout the
project.

MUDIT BACHHAWAT

17BAL51250

BRIEF FACTS

Plaintiff-Respondent- Daughter’s of Harkaran - Kunni Devi, Anni devi


and Sunni devi.
Defendants-Petitioners- Modu Ram, Rama Ram and Dharma Ram.
After death of Harkaran & his wife-mother of Plaintiff & defendant,
the land measuring
91 Biga 61 Biswa being intestate left behind, though was mutated in
name of sons of Harkaran & part thereof sold by them in year2012
by Registered sale Deed, the suit preferred by Plaintiffs before
revenue court SDO, Makrana seeking reliefs:-
a. Declaration of khatedari rights of Plaintiffs,
b. Partition of 1/6th share of each legal heir for the agricultural
land in question.
c. Cancellation of sale deed dtd. 29.10.2012 .

On the Arguments mentioned herebelow:-


1) It is humbly submitted that in terms of Section 8 of Hindu
Succession act, 1956 all legal heirs of a deceased leaving behind
the property are entitle for the share & being plaintiffs are 1st
degree legal heirs to the deceased Harkaran the right of khatedari
in the agricultural land as a tenant/ co tenant, the 1/6 th share of
the land in dispute along with the defendant’s brothers, sought by
way of filing revenue suit U/s 88 of Tenancy Act seeking
declaration of Tenancy rights are lawful, hence deserves to be
granted as primary relief. The other two reliefs (Partition &
Cancellation of sale deed) are ancillary to it, as such be granted
accordingly.
2) It is humbly submitted that the application preferred by
defendants-petitioner’s U/O 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC rejected vide order
dated 06.06.2013 by SDO Makrana is lawful being the matter
pertains to agricultural land & primarily the sought relief pertains
to Revenue Court jurisdiction as per Section 207 & 242 of Tenancy
Act. In view thereto, application regarding the bar of Jurisdiction
of Revenue Court in respect of the sought prayers cannot be said
to be the matter be adjudicated before Civil Court.
3) It is humbly submitted that the Board of Revenue , Rajasthan
Ajmer vide order dated 07.02.2014 rightly rejected the Revision
petition preferred against the order dated 06.06.2013, being
lawful in terms of section 207, 242 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act
1955.
4) It is humbly submitted that the provisions of section 88 and 183
of the Tenancy Act read with the Judgments pronounced by the
Hon’ble High Court and the principles settled therein, the suit filed
by the plaintiffs before the SDO Makrana is within Jurisdiction. The
sought prayer regarding declaration of Tenancy rights is within
jurisdiction to the Revenue Court only and the ancillary reliefs
sought regarding partition and cancellation of sale deed pertains
to the agricultural land having nature of ancestral property
therefore in respect of determination of true nature of the relief
relates to determination of Tenancy Right.
5) It is humbly submitted that the intestated property of Harkaran
does not bars the Revenue Court as such the application under
Order 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC is rightly dismissed by the SDO Makrana
as well as the order passed by the Board of Revenue are dismissed
in correct prospective.
6) It is humbly submitted that as the mutation in name of plaintiffs
was not recorded to be khatedar of the land in dispute, hence the
revenue court is having jurisdiction in respect of declaration of
tenancy right. The ‘Cause of Action’, as regarding the fact which
would be necessary for the plaintiffs to prove, if traversed, in
order to support their right to judgment. (Mohd Khalil Khan v.
Mahbub Ali Mian). It settles that in each and every case the cause
of action for filing of the suit shall have to be strictly scrutinized in
order to determine whether the suit is exclusively cognizable by a
Revenue court or is impliedly cognizable only by a Revenue court
or is cognizable by a Civil court. It is well established that if more
than one reliefs are claimed in the suit, then the jurisdiction of the
Civil or Revenue courts to entertain the suit shall be determined
on the basis as to what is the real or substantial or main relief
claimed in the suit.
7) It is submitted that the claim of the plaintiffs was that the
executed sale deed to Hukmaram without the determined share
of the brothers who sold the agricultural land was wholly void and
nullity and therefore the suit was triable only by the Revenue
Court and therefore, both the authorities (SDO & BOR) were
justified in rejecting the application. The Reliance is placed on the
pronouncements in Jaswant Singh v. Board Of Revenue cited in
1984 RLW 573 and Rukmani v. Bhola (2012) 4 RLW (Raj.) 3050.
8) It is humbly submitted that merely seeking ancillary relief
regarding partition of the shares in between plaintiffs -
defendants & cancellation of sale deed execute without having
determined the lawful authority to execute the deed hence the
Revenue Court is having Jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the
matter in dispute.
PRAYER

It is therefore humbly prayed that the present writ petition be


dismissed.

You might also like