Civil Court Retains Jurisdiction Where Land Is Declared Non‑Agricultural During Pendency of Litigation

A bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan heard an appeal by a landlord challenging a High Court order that had directed return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC on the ground that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction because the land was agricultural. The primary issue concerned whether a declaration under Section 143 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (UPZALR Act) made during the pendency of proceedings altered jurisdictional competence in favour of the Civil Court.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment and remitted the matter to the First Appellate Court to be decided on merits within six months. The Court held that subsequent events which went to the root of the lis could be taken into account because "appeal is continuance of proceedings" and that the land had been declared non‑agricultural during the pendency of the litigation, thereby vesting jurisdiction in the Civil Court. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court further emphasised that "merely on account of deficiency by the officers, the appellant cannot be deprived of the benefits of the declaration so made."

Background The dispute arose from a registered tenancy agreement dated 31.07.1970 under which a portion of land was let for a non‑agricultural purpose — establishment of an Indian Oil petrol pump — at a monthly rent of ₹150. The tenant defaulted in payment of rent from 01.07.1972 and the landlord filed a suit for eviction and arrears in 1974. The Trial Court decreed the suit on 30.11.1981. On appeal, the First Appellate Court held in 1992 that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction because the land had not been declared non‑agricultural under Section 143 of the UPZALR Act and therefore set aside the decree. The High Court, in Second Appeal No.1623 of 1992, partially accepted the landlord’s challenge but directed return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, maintaining that without a Section 143 declaration the land retained agricultural character.

The landlord contested those findings before the Supreme Court. It was undisputed on record that an initial administrative approval under Section 143 was dated 10.12.1975 and that a final declaration declaring the land non‑agricultural was made on 14.03.1986 — a development that occurred during the pendency of the earlier proceedings. The respondents contended that registration under Section 145 of the UPZALR Act was required and alleged non‑registration rendered the declaration ineffective; the Court rejected this contention, noting that Section 145 imposed a duty on the Assistant Collector to forward the declaration for registration and did not place the onus on the landowner. The Supreme Court found that the First Appellate Court and the High Court had failed to take judicial notice of the 14.03.1986 declaration when addressing jurisdiction. The appeal was allowed, the High Court’s order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the First Appellate Court for fresh consideration on merits within six months. Pending applications stood disposed of with no order as to costs.

Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO.10256 OF 2025 Case Title: MAHESH CHAND (DEAD) THROUGH LR(S) v. BRIJESH KUMAR & ORS. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Counsel not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Counsel not indicated in the judgment