The Supreme Court held that jurisdiction is determined by the nature of the land at the time of adjudication, not filing. A subsequent declaration of land as non-agricultural under the UPZALR Act during pending proceedings validates a civil court’s jurisdiction, and appeals are a continuation of the original suit.
Facts Of The Case:
In 1970, the appellant-landlord and the predecessor of respondents 1-3 entered a registered tenancy agreement for a piece of land to establish an Indian Oil petrol pump at a monthly rent of ₹150. The tenant defaulted on rent payments from July 1972, prompting the landlord to file a suit for eviction and arrears of rent in 1974 in the Civil Court. The tenants contested the Civil Court’s jurisdiction, claiming the land was agricultural and thus only the Revenue Court could adjudicate the matter. The Trial Court rejected this application in 1976, decreeing the suit in 1981, a decision challenged in appeal. Crucially, during the litigation, the land was officially declared non-agricultural by the competent revenue authority under the UPZALR Act in 1986. However, the First Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court’s decree, ruling it lacked jurisdiction as the land was agricultural on the suit’s filing date. The High Court partially allowed the landlord’s second appeal but directed the plaint’s return to be presented before the competent Revenue Court, upholding the jurisdictional bar. The core legal dispute centered on which court had jurisdiction when the land’s nature changed during the pendency of the legal proceedings.
Procedural History:
The suit for eviction and rent arrears was initially decreed by the Trial Court in 1981. On appeal, the First Appellate Court reversed this decision, holding the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction as the land was agricultural. The landlord’s second appeal to the High Court was partially allowed; the appellate court’s judgment was set aside but the plaint was ordered to be returned for presentation to the competent Revenue Court under Order VII Rule 10 CPC. The Supreme Court, in the final appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment and remanded the case back to the First Appellate Court to be decided on its merits.
READ ALSO:What Qualifies as ‘Goods’? Supreme Court Explains Why a Power Plant Isn’t Eligible for Export Benefits
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made several key observations. It held that an appeal is a continuation of the original suit, and subsequent events, such as a formal declaration of the land as non-agricultural under the UPZALR Act during the pendency of litigation, must be considered to determine the court’s jurisdiction. The Court found that the First Appellate Court and the High Court had erred by failing to consider this crucial development, which vested jurisdiction in the Civil Court. It further ruled that the obligation to register such a declaration under Section 145 of the UPZALR Act fell upon the revenue authorities, not the landowner, and any procedural lapse on their part could not deprive the appellant of his rights. The tenants were also estopped from disputing the land’s non-agricultural nature after having utilized it for a commercial purpose since the inception of the tenancy.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court. The Court held that the Civil Court indeed had jurisdiction to entertain the suit, as the land had been formally declared non-agricultural during the pendency of the litigation. The case was remanded back to the First Appellate Court to be heard and decided on its merits. Considering the litigation was over 50 years old, the Supreme Court directed the First Appellate Court to conclude the proceedings within six months from the receipt of this order. All pending applications were disposed of with no order as to costs.
Case Details:
Case Title: Mahesh Chand (Dead) Through LR(s) vs. Brijesh Kumar & Ors. CRIMINAL/Civil APPEAL No: Civil Appeal No.10256 of 2025 Date Of Judgement: August 19, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan
Download The Judgement Here