Jurisdiction of Civil Court and Revenue Court

By Aaryan Dhar

Introduction

According to Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Courts have authority to prosecute all civil cases except those that are directly or impliedly barred from their jurisdiction. However, depending on the type, importance, or location of the subject matter, the defendant’s home, and other factors, this general rule is subject to different restrictions.

Each expression and definition impose an obligation on the court to exercise authority in order to achieve rights. If the evidence is listed in Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, no court may refuse to investigate it.

According to the dictionary, the term civil refers to a person as an entity. Nature has been defined as a person’s or thing’s primary attributes.

There is no explanation for ‘Civil Suit’ in any of the acts. A civil suit refers to any legal action that is not criminal in nature. A civil suit may be described as any lawsuit involving the determination and enforcement of civil rights.

The Court expanded on the principle of civil proceedings in the case of Kehar Singh Nihal Singh vs Custodian General^[1]. A grant of private rights to individuals or businesses in society was established. The action’s goal is to recompense or reclaim private property rights.

In other words, a civil suit is a legal case involving two parties for the purpose of enforcing or redressing private property.

Section 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure defines “Revenue Court” as a Court with original jurisdiction under this Code to try suits or proceedings relating to the rent, revenue, or income of land used for agricultural purposes, it does not provide a Civil Court with original jurisdiction under this Code to try such suits or proceedings as civil suits or proceedings.

A revenue Court in simple terms is a revenue officer acting in a judicial instead of an executive capacity.

There are, therefore, the same classes of revenue Courts as of revenue officers, and ordinarily a revenue officer of any grade is a revenue Court of the same grade and his jurisdiction in the one capacity is co-extensive with his jurisdiction in the other. (Section 77(2) of Punjab Tenancy Act, XVI of 1887.)

This article deals with the those matters which fall in conflict between the civil courts and the revenue Courts and the decision of the High Court on which court gets the authority/jurisdiction to deal with the matter at hand.

Jurisdiction

The Delhi High Court rules of 1967 laid down the jurisdiction pertaining to matters which when introduced in the civil courts, do not have the compete jurisdiction to deal with the matter at hand, and thus the pertaining jurisdiction to deal with these matters fall under the ambit of the revenue officer/ the revenue Court.

The High court has laid down the jurisdiction pertaining to civil and revenue courts under 7 topics of discussion as stated below-

• Matter raised in defence which is solely triable by Revenue Court.
• Suit for correction of entries in Revenue record.
• Question of title arising in land partition proceedings before Revenue Officers.
• Reference to Civil Court by Revenue Court.
• Reference to High Court in cases of doubt as to jurisdiction of Civil or Revenue Court.
• Succession to occupancy holding.
• Hadd-Shikni cases.

Matter raised in defence which is solely triable by Revenue Court

Certain Matters raised in the Civil court, where the revenue court has jurisdiction to decide upon the matter-

If a claimant presents a plea in a suit that, as framed, is under the jurisdiction of a Civil Court, the process laid down in the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act must be followed and the plaint returned for presentation to the Collector.

Sub-section (3) of Section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act of the Punjab tenancy Acts states-

• A Revenue Officer is referred to as a Revenue Court when he is exercising jurisdiction over any other suit as defined in Subsection (3), or an appeal or other action arising out of such suit.
• Where it becomes appropriate to resolve any matter that can only be heard and decided by a Revenue Court under this sub-section in a suit cognizable by and initiated in a Civil Court, the Civil Court shall affirm on the plaint the form of the matter for judgment and the particulars required by Order VII rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, and return the plaint to the Collector;
• Where the amount of the suit exceeds Rs. 1,000 or the matter concerned is of the sort described in Section 77(3), First Group, of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (XVI of 1887), the Collector shall continue to hear and decide the suit, and in other cases may refer the suit to an Assistant Collector of the first grade for judgment.

Thus, in suits pertaining to these circumstances as stated above, the matter should not remain within the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts, and thus the Court must report the same and transfer the matter back to the jurisdiction of the revenue officer/collector do deal with the matter at hand.

This can be seen in the case of Ram Sarup S/O Tule Ram Jain Agarwal vs Ram Chander and Ors. ^[2]

In the matter at hand Ram Sarup filed a civil suit for ownership of this land against Ram Chander, claiming that he is the occupancy occupant of this land as a result of the Official Receiver’s selling in his favour, and that Ram Chander defendant was in unlawful possession.

Ram Chander, the appellant, objected to the suit for a variety of reasons. He said that the original occupancy occupant had sold his rights to the landlord, who had then sold the whole holding to him, and that the Official Receiver’s selling of the occupancy rights was invalid.

The appellant responded to this objection by claiming that the parties’ prior decision was res judicata and that the defendant was barred from raising the plea.

The Division Bench held that the plea raised by the defendant-landlord that the sale of the occupancy rights by the Official Receiver in favour of Ram Sarup was not binding upon him and should, therefore, be set aside was a plea, which was exclusively triable by a Revenue Court.

Therefore, the letters patent appeal was accepted and the judgment of the learned Single Judge was set aside and the case was sent back to the trial Court with the direction and then sent back to Ram Sarup to send it back to the revenue court under Sub-section (3) of Section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act.

Suit for correction of entries in Revenue records

Under Section 158(2) of the Revenue Act, a civil suit cannot deceive for the correction of an entry in a Record of Rights or Annual Record (vi). Any person who believes he has been wronged by such an entry may file a suit for a recognition of his right under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. (Vide Section 45 of Punjab Land Revenue Act).

Section 158(2) (xvii) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, if on an agricultural land plots have been carved out and houses have been constructed, then the Revenue Court has no jurisdiction to partition the land and the Revenue Courts lose their jurisdiction.^[3]

This can be stated in the case of Waris Ali Khan vs Parshotham Narain^[4]

The legislature has classified suits under Chapter XII, or suits between co-sharers in the zamindari, into two classes: those in which the plaintiff is not documented as having an exclusive privilege entitling him to sue, and those in which the plaintiff is recorded as having such a proprietary right.

In the first instance, it directs the court to continue mutatis mutandis as ordered by Section 199, i.e., it grants the Revenue Court the authority to investigate and settle the issue of title as it sees fit. For the reasons mentioned in the preceding example, I believe such a decision should be made.

Raja Kausal Kishor Parshad Mal Bahadur v. Beni Pande^[5]. will be res judicata in the case of a subsequent suit in a Civil Court seeking to resolve the same problem. The aim of granting these powers to the Revenue Court was to prevent the proliferation of suits that occurred under the Rent Act of 1831.

Thus, in these types of suits where the aggrieve party feels that he/she has been wronged for correction for an entry in a record or in any other similar circumstances then the particular matter does not vest under the jurisdiction of the civil Courts and falls under the jurisdiction of the revenue officer/ the revenue Courts.

Question of title arising in land partition proceedings before Revenue Officers

Only where a Revenue Officer fails to assess the matter himself as if he were a Civil Court and refuses to continue to partition until the issue is resolved by a court of competent jurisdiction can a Civil Court accept a suit related to a dispute as to title in tax-assessed property resulting in partition proceedings.

The plaint should then appeal to the Revenue Officer’s order issued under Section 117, sub-section (1) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, and the Civil Court should satisfy itself that such an order has been issued.

The plaint is accompanied by a copy of such an order.

Where a matter of land partition arises, the Revenue Officer has the initial authority under Sub-section (1) of Section 117 of the Punjab Act 17 of 1887 to determine whether or not “a question as to title in any of the property of which partition is sought” is concerned.

This is the first thing he must decide. Further repercussions emerge as a result of his judgment in this regard. If he determines that no question of title exists, he continues to divide the land; but, if he determines that a question of title exists, he has the option of referring the parties to an ordinary civil court or converting himself into a civil Court for the purpose of deciding the question of title.^[6]

In the case of Karnail Singh and others vs. The Additional Director^[7], this can be seen.

A few of the joint owners in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution have sought the assistance of this Court to have the order of the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, that the khata should be held joint in consolidation proceedings set aside and to have the original consolidation scheme, which called for division.

Under Section 117 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, which makes an exception to Section 16-A of the Act’s other clauses. In any case, a Consolidation Officer would not be justified in making a provision for shared land division in the event of a title dispute until the dispute is resolved in the manner described above.

As a result, the Consolidation Officer will have to frame the arrangement in such a way that the shared property remained joint.

Reference to Civil Court by Revenue Court

Section 98 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, empowers a Revenue Court to refer any party to a Civil suit for the resolution of any issue that the Revenue Court deems appropriate for a Civil Court to decide. Such a referral must be made by written order, with the prior approval of the Controlling Revenue Court, if applicable.

Section 98 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887

If any question in a dispute proceeding before a Revenue Court exercising original, appellate, or revisional jurisdiction indicates to the court to be more properly decided by a Civil Court, the Revenue Court may, with the prior sanction of the court of law, if any, to which it is immediately subject, require any party to the proceeding to institute, by order in writing, a Civil Court.

If the party files the suit in response to the requisition, the Revenue Court will decide the case standing before it in line with the Civil Court of First Instance’s final judgment or appeal, as the case may be.

Reference to High Court in cases of doubt as to jurisdiction of Civil or Revenue Court

If the presiding officer of a Civil or Revenue Court in which a suit has been filed is unsure if he is barred from taking cognizance of the suit, he can take the dispute to the High Court through the District Judge or Commissioner, or directly to the High Court whether he is a District Judge or Commissioner.

If the High Court receives such a referral, it may direct the presiding officer to either continue the suit or recall the plaint for presentation in such other court as it may declare competent to hear the case in its order.

The High Court order on any other relation is binding both against those who are not party to the suit and against those who are.

The High Court has the authority to validate cases that were carried in error as to jurisdiction. Under one of the following circumstances:

• If it appears to a Civil Court that a Court under its jurisdiction has decided a suit for a class specified in Section 77 that should have been heard and decided by a Revenue Court under the provisions of that Section.
• If it appears to a Civil Court that a Court under its control has decided a suit for a class mentioned in Section 77 that should have been heard and decided by a Revenue Court under the provisions of that Section.
• If a Revenue Court believes that a Court under its jurisdiction has decided a suit that should have been heard by a Civil Court, the Civil Court or Revenue Court, as the case may be, shall refer the suit’s record to the High Court.

If the High Court determines, after reviewing the record, that the suit was decided in good faith and that the parties were not prejudiced by the jurisdictional error, the High Court may require that the decree be recorded in the court with jurisdiction

If it occurs to the High Court that a Civil Court within its control has decided a suit of a class listed in Sec 77 that should have been heard and decided by a Revenue Court under the provisions of that section, the High Court may make any order that it would have made if the record had been submitted to it.

In the case of any action brought after the decree, the High Court may make such an order for its registration in a Revenue Court or Civil Court as appears just and proper in the circumstances.

An order of the High Court issued under this provision is definitive as against non-parties as well as parties to the complaint or proceedings, and the decree or proceeding to which the order applies has the same effect as though it had been rendered or heard by the Court in which the order has authorized it to be reported.

The terms of this section extend to any claim filed on or after November 1, 1884, as well as any proceedings resulting from such suit.

This can be seen in the case of Richpal Singh And Others Etc vs Dalip^[8]

Facts-

On the 29th of July, 1975, the appellants filed a petition in the Court of Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Ballabgarh, seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant from his lands under section 77(3) proviso 2(e) of the Act on the ground that the respondent-tenant had defaulted in the payment of rent.

On the 29th of October, 1976, the suit was decided. The defendant was expelled from the suit land as a result of the decree. The respondent did not file an appeal from the said decree, despite the fact that it was allowed under the said Act.

The respondent, on the other hand, filed a civil suit against the appellants, charging that he was in effect a mortgagee in possession of the suit land and not a tenant, and that the Revenue Court’s decree of ejectment dated October 29, 1976 was beyond authority and hence void.

Held-

Here it was stated that the particular matter could be referred to the High Court under section 99 of the Revenue Act. These clauses, in our view, have no bearing on the matter of whether the Revenue Court’s decision under the Revenue Act will serve as res judicata in such cases, such as this one.

The fact that all suits by a landlord to reject a tenant do not include suits to determine if an individual is a tenant or not, or if the complainant is a landlord or not, demonstrates the jurisdiction’s boundaries.

Finding out whether the first court, in this case the Revenue Court, should go through the matter of whether the complainant was a tenant in possession or a mortgagee in possession is a useful and easy test to use in deciding whether the previous decision acted as res judicata or on principles similar to it.

With the previously mentioned language, it is clear that it cannot. There was no res judicata if that was the case. The civil suit that followed was not barred by res judicata.^[9]

Succession to occupancy holding

Suits relating to succession to occupancy holdings, under Section 59 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, lie in the Civil Courts.

(1) When a tenant with a right of occupancy in any property passes, the right transfers to:

• His male lineal successors, if any, in the male line of descent,
• His female lineal descendants, if any, in the female line of descent.
• In the absence of those heirs, on his widow, if any, until she dies, remarries, abandons the estate, or is ejected from it under the provisions of this Act, and
• In the absence of those heirs and widows, on his widowed mother, if any, before she dies, remarries, abandons the estate, or is ejected from it under the provisions of this Act.]
• Failing such heirs and widow, or widowed mother, or if the deceased tenant left a widow or widowed mother, then on his male collateral relatives in the male line on descent from the deceased tenant’s shared ancestor and those relatives when her interest terminates under clause (b) or (c) of this sub-section.

Provided, however, that the common ancestor inhabited the land in clause (d) of this sub-section.

Instructions – Land acquired in consideration by the deceased occupant or either of his predecessors-in-interest in accordance with the terms of sub-section (1) of section 58-A shall be considered to have been inhabited by the general ancestor if the land granted for it in exchange was occupied by him.

• The right shall devolve into heirs and collateral relatives alleging under sub-section as if it were property left by the deceased in the village in which the land subject to the right is situated, subject to the provisions of that sub-section.
• Where the widow of a deceased tenant inherits a right of occupancy, she does not sell, give, or mortgage the right or sublease it for more than one year.
• If the deceased occupant has left no such persons as those listed in sub-section (1) to whom his right of occupation can devolve under that sub-section, the right to occupy the premises shall be extinguished.

Hadd – Shikni cases

Civil Courts have jurisdiction over Hadd-Shikni cases. The Punjab Land Revenue Act of 1887, section 158, sub-section 2(1), does not extend under these circumstances.

That section simply states that a Civil Court has no jurisdiction to review a Revenue Officer’s decision about the delimitation of land that is inhabited as the site of a town or village but is not assessed to land revenue for the purposes of the Punjab Land Revenue Act.

References

• sub-section (3) of Section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887/
• Section 158(2) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887/
• Section 117, sub-section (1) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887/
• Section 98 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887/
• Section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887/
• Section 59 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887/
• section 158, sub-section 2(1), Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887/

1. Kehar Singh Nihal Singh vs Custodian General AIR 1959 P H 58 ↑
2. Ram Sarup S/O Tule Ram Jain Agarwal vs Ram Chander and Ors. AIR 1976 P H 246 ↑
3. Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot Vs. Baldev Dass 2004(4) RCR  ↑
4. Waris Ali Khan vs Parshotham Narain 6 Ind Cas 609 ↑
5. Raja Kausal Kishor Parshad Mal Bahadur v. Beni Pande 4 A.L.J. 53: A.W.N. (1907) ↑
6. Ajit Singh vs Smt. Subaghan And Ors. AIR 1970 P H 93 ↑
7. Karnail Singh And Anr. vs The Additional Director AIR 1968 P H 469 ↑
8. Richpal Singh And Others Etc vs Dalip 1987 AIR 2205 ↑
9. ↑