Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
NATWARLAL GUPTA S/O. NOT KNOWN vs DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL S/O. SHRI SHALTA PRASAD AGARWAL - Rajasthan
, HC RJKANHAIYA LAL @ KANA SON OF LATE SHRI VIJAY LAL @ VIJAY, vs GANESH NARAYAN SON OF LATE SHRI BHAIRU RAM, - Rajasthan
) establish that suits for declaration of easementary rights or possession over land that has been converted into 'abadi' are maintainable in civil courts. Once land is converted, the jurisdiction shifts from revenue to civil courts, especially if the conversion is legally recognized and documented.
Legal disputes over land are common, especially when it comes to classification and conversion of land types such as and (residential/urbanized) land. A frequently asked question is: Is a concerning , which has not been converted to , in ? This issue hinges on the legal classification of the land and the of the courts involved.
In this article, we explore the legal principles, relevant case law, and practical considerations to understand when a is regarding land that has not been officially converted into . We will also incorporate insights from various legal documents and judgments to provide a comprehensive overview.
The core question is whether a can entertain a suit related to that remains classified as and has not been converted into . The distinction is crucial because it determines the appropriate forum for legal proceedings and the of the courts.
Land recorded as in generally remains so until formally converted into land. Conversion requires official permission from the state authorities. As per legal precedents, mere use of land for purposes does not automatically change its classification [
#LandLaw #PropertyLegalTips #AbadiLand
He submits that in view of change of use of land to abadi, the decree in suit for declaration rendered infructuous. ... Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for respondents-plaintiffs and submitted that concealing facts of decree and pendency of appeal before the ADJ Court, the land was converted from revenue land to abadi, in state run campaign. ... Th....
and common well within the land in question and other than the land which was wrongly recorded as Sivaychak. ... This Khatedari land was wrongly entered as Sivaychak in Khasra Girdavri of Samwat-2019 on the basis of an order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Rajgarh in the year 1979. ... where the residential buildings and public amenities have been constructed will not be disturbed....
(supra), while negating the argument raised by the plaintiff that since, no relief is based on the fact that the land in question is agricultural land, the suit before the Civil Court would be maintainable, held as under:- “14. ... In case of Kamlesh (supra), while deciding the civil second appeal involving the issue of jurisdiction of the Civil Court which was decided ....
and hence, the suit is not maintainable before a Civil Court. ... land and therefore, the Civil Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the having decided so, this Court is of the specific opinion that the suit therefore would be maintainable before the Civil Court. ... Court does not....
The present petitioners controverted the eviction petition (supra), inter alia, on the ground that, as per the relevant revenue record, the petition land(s) falls within the ambit of "abadi deh", therefore, the petition (supra) was not maintainable. ... To buttress this argument, they placed reliance upon a decision, drawn on 20.03.2014, by the learned civil court concerned, upon Civil #....
Undisputedly, the land stood converted in the Abadi land prior to filing of the suit by the plaintiff. ... Learned counsel for the defendants would submit that in view of the nature of the land being agricultural, without seeking a declaration as to his khatedari rights, civil suit was not maintainable. ... An applic....
being converted into abadi land from plaintiff and since suit was not maintainable and as such, land which was initially agriculture had became abadi prayer is accepted, the entire nature of suit would change.
The defendant is, therefore, not liable to eviction. The further plea raised is that no cause of action has arisen to the plaintiff to institute the present suit, which is not maintainable. The plaintiffs have no right to sue. The Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. ... If they chose to file a suit to recovery the money due under the lease instead of first ....
suit was not maintainable. ... Undisputedly, the land stood converted in the Abadi land prior to filing of the suit by the plaintiff. ... , without seeking a declaration as to his khatedari rights, civil suit was not maintainable. ... Since, the subject #HL_ST....
of the land shall not be disturbed. ... The land classified as Abadi/Gramakantam cannot be classified as Government land and it means land earmarked for residential purpose. ... When there is a bonafide dispute regarding title and possession of the petitioners is prima facie established, the respondent-Government is bound to institute a civil suit or a....
The trial court has committed grave error of law while decreeing the suit. At least we expected the High Court to be careful in following the aforesaid catena of judgments passed by this Court in which law has been laid down succinctly.” A civil suit to invalidate the land acquisition is not maintainable. The remedy of the respondents, if any, was to claim a compensation from Doonga by seeking reference under Section 18 or Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act or to file a c....
As such the substantial question of law No. 1 is answered in affirmative that the suit land is a public Nistar land and Abadi land and cannot be converted for personal use by defendants. 12. Learned first appellate Court altogether ignored these findings of trial Court.
In the present case, the suit land is not “abadi” land. In the mutation entry in land record does not confer any title but simultaneously it has also been held that such record should be supported by other evidence. Suit land is Raitwari land on which plaintiff has acquired right of tenancy under section 54 of MB Land Revenue and Tenancy Act and thereafter right of Bhumiswami under section 190 of the MP Land Revenue Code.
The learned counsel submitted that Shri Taher Ali so also the Municipal Board, Banswara were party defendant in the suit filed and the judgment dated 11.2.88 dismissing the suit having attained finality, the same is binding upon Tahar Ali and his successors. The suit filed was dismissed by the Assistant Collector, Banswara vide judgment dated 11.2.88 holding that the land in Khasra No. 1940 was converted into Abadi land but the entry of the same was not made in the Revenue Record.#HL....
The learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have concealed a material fact that a suit was filed by Tehsildar, Banswara u/S. 175-177 of the Act of 1955 in respect of the land of Khasra No. 1940 alleging that the said land is agriculture land and therefore, the same could not have been allotted to the defendants therein by the Municipal Board, Banswara and the construction raised by the allottees on the land is illegal. Accordingly, it is submitted that since the petitioners have conceal....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
