Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 171 (RAJ)

Ramsharan Modi v. Parmanand

2010-01-20

G.K.TIWARI

body2010
TIWARI, M.—The above cited eight revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (in short `the Act') are taken together for a common judgment as they are directed against the same impugned order dated 31.8.09 of Sub-Divisional Officer Ramganjmandi. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the non-petitioners-plaintiffs have filed suits under Section 188 of the Act against the petitioner-defendant in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer Ramganjmandi (District Kota) for grant of permanent injunction in respect of the disputed lands which stand in the khatedari right of the non-petitioners plaintiffs. During pendency of these suits, the petitioner-defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for rejection of the plaints. The Sub-Divisional Officer Ramganjmandi after hearing rival parties dismissed the applications filed before under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC by the impugned order dated 31.8.09, aggrieved against which the above cited revisions are preferred in this Court. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for both the parties. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the disputed lands are no longer agricultural lands as they are situated within the mining are where mining work is going on. It is pleaded that the original khatedars of the disputed lands have already given their consent for mining of these lands, so now the plaintiffs-non-petitioners cannot object to the mining and cannot invoke injunction against the petitioner who is holder of a valid lease issued by the Mining Department with regard to the lands under consideration. It is also pleaded that mining lease is issued under the Central Act of Mining which has overriding effect on the State enacted the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. It is also submitted that the mineral rights vest in the State Government and not in the khatedar and government has awarded this mineral right to the petitioner through license. The petitioner has possession on the disputed lands which are no longer agricultural lands now; as such the suits filed about these mining lands are barred by law in the revenue court. But overlooking this fact the trial court has illegally and arbitrarily rejected the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Therefore, the impugned order of Sub-Divisional Officer Ramganjmandi should be set aside and the plaints should be rejected as barred by the law. But overlooking this fact the trial court has illegally and arbitrarily rejected the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Therefore, the impugned order of Sub-Divisional Officer Ramganjmandi should be set aside and the plaints should be rejected as barred by the law. The learned cited 2003 AIR (SC) 759 and (2005) 7 SCC 510 to support his contention. 5. The learned counsel for the non-petitioners pleaded that the non-petitioners are the recorded khatedar tenants of the disputed lands which are basically agricultural in nature and which have not been converted into abadi land so far. It is also contended that the petitioner-defendant is not the original lessee of the disputed lands, he is only a transferee from Ramji Das Modi who was original lease holder; so if there was any consent given by the khatedars earlier, it was given to Ramji Das Modi and not to the present petitioner who should seek fresh consent after paying necessary compensation to the khatedars under section 89(4) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. So far no compensation is paid to any khatedar for the alleged mining on their khatedari lands. It is also submitted that the non-petitioners are from scheduled tribes and their right and interest in their khatedari lands should not be jeopardized through illegal trespass and illegal mining by the petitioner. Citing 2009(2) RRT 882 : RLW 2009(2) RJ 1027 (HC), 2009(1) RRT 255 : RLW 2009(1) RJ 199 (HC) and AIR 2003(SC) 759 it was pleaded that the application is rightly decided by the trial Court on the basis of averment made in the plaints and looking to the khatedari and agricultural nature of the disputed lands. So the impugned order should not be interfered with. 6. I have pondered over the arguments of both the learned counsels and carefully perused the impugned order dated 31.8.09 of Sub-Divisional Officer Ramganjmandi. 7. Admittedly the non-petitioners-plaintiffs are the recorded khatedars of the disputed lands. Presently the disputed lands are recorded in the jamabandi and other revenue records as agricultural lands in the khatedari right of the non-petitioners-plaintiffs. Contention of the petitioner is that khatedars of the disputed lands have already given their written consent to the original mining lease-holder, so they are now estopped from objecting to the mining work going on in these fields. Contention of the petitioner is that khatedars of the disputed lands have already given their written consent to the original mining lease-holder, so they are now estopped from objecting to the mining work going on in these fields. On the contrary the argument of the non-petitioners is that the petitioner is not the original lease-holder but only a transferee from the original lease-holder in whose favour earlier consent was purportedly given. This disputed question of fact cannot be decided in the given applications but in the main suit only after framing necessary issues and leading evidence. The dispute pertaining to the fact whether compensation was paid to the khatedars under Section 89(4) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act or not is again a matter of fact subject to proof through evidence. Evidently such disputed questions of facts cannot be decided on an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. I am placing reliance in this regard on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as reported in 2005(7) SCC 510 . 8. A plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC only where it does not disclose a cause of action, or where relief claimed is under-valued, or where the plaint is written upon the paper insufficiently stamped or where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. I have gone through the copies of the plaints filed by the non-petitioners in this regard. None of the averment of the plaints or any statement in the plaints shows that it is barred by any law. Provisions of Rule 11(a) to (f) of Order 7 of the CPC are not fulfilled in the cases under consideration. The plaints categorically state that the disputed lands are agricultural khatedari lands and recorded as such in the revenue records. It is held by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in 2009(1) RRT 255 that when the land in question is recorded as an agricultural land in khatedari right in the revenue record and so long as it is not converted into Abadi land, a suit is triable by revenue court only. It is held by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in 2009(1) RRT 255 that when the land in question is recorded as an agricultural land in khatedari right in the revenue record and so long as it is not converted into Abadi land, a suit is triable by revenue court only. At the stage of adjudication of application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC court is required to see only averments made in the plaint, court cannot consider the evidence or material produced by the defendants-as held in 2009(2) RRT 882 by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court. 9. Obviously, in light of above deliberation, the trial Court has not committed any illegality in rejecting the application filed before him under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC as the lands are recorded khatedari and agricultural lands which have so far not been converted into Abadi lands. Besides there is no statement or averment made in the plaints from which suits appear to be barred by any law. Thus, I do not find any jurisdictional error or illegality in the impugned orders of the trial court. The petitioner is free to raise all his objections in his written statement, on which proper issues can be framed, evidence led and thereafter appropriate decision would be arrived at according to the due process of law. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, the above cited revision petitions are not maintainable. 11. Resultantly the above cited revision petitions are dismissed in limine. Pronounced.