Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code Can't Oust Civil Court's Jurisdiction On Title Suits: High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a recent ruling, reaffirmed that civil courts have jurisdiction over suits for declaration of title and permanent injunctions and there is no conflict with Section 257(f) & (m) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code. This case highlighted the essential distinction between matters exclusively within the purview of revenue authorities and those adjudicated by civil courts.

The case was decided by Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal who clarified the jurisdiction of civil courts in suits for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

The appeal arose from a civil suit filed by Balbhadra Prasad seeking a declaration of title, a permanent injunction, and nullification of an order dated August 22, 1992, passed by the Naib Tahsildar regarding land in Mauja Pathar Kachhar, Satna. The trial court dismissed the suit, citing it as non-maintainable under specific provisions of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, which restrict civil court jurisdiction in certain matters.

The appellant's counsel argued that the trial court erred in its interpretation of Section 257(f) & (m) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, which pertains to entries in land records and the ejectment of government lessees. The primary relief sought was a declaration of title and a permanent injunction, not merely amendments in land records. The appellant further contended that the trial court's failure to address issues beyond maintainability was a jurisdictional error.

Justice Bansal pointed out the essential distinction between matters exclusively within the purview of revenue authorities and those rightly adjudicated by civil courts. Section 257 of the Code precludes civil courts from addressing issues specifically entrusted to revenue authorities, such as land record entries and government lessee ejectments. However, the court emphasized that this exclusion does not extend to suits involving the declaration of title and permanent injunctions.

Referencing landmark judgments, including Rohini Prasad & Ors. vs. Kasturchand & Anr. (2000) and Hukum Singh (dead) by LRs & Ors. vs. State of MP (2005), Justice Bansal underlined that civil courts retain jurisdiction over title disputes unless expressly excluded by statute. The trial court's reliance on Section 257(f) & (m) was deemed misplaced as these provisions were irrelevant to the appellant's claims.

The High Court set aside the trial court's judgment and decree dated September 23, 1998, declaring it unsustainable. The case was remanded to the trial court for a fresh decision on merits, including addressing the issues of title and permanent injunction.

Case title: Balbhadra Prasad Versus Sarjo Prasad And Others

Citation: FIRST APPEAL No. 508 of 1998

Click Here To Read/Download Order