Supreme Court on Jurisdiction of Civil Courts in Cases Involving Post-Suit Land Reclassification.

The Supreme Court of India while hearing the appeal sets the jurisdiction of the Court in reclasification of land during the pendecy of the suit thereby setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the High Courtd and remitting the matter back to the First Appellate Court.

The applea is stemmed from a tenancy agreement executed on July 31, 1970, where a portion of land was leased for ₹150/- per month to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents for the express purpose of setting up an Indian Oil petrol pump, a non-agricultural activity.

The appellant filed a suit for eviction and recovery of rent in 1974 after the tenants failed to pay rent regularly. However, the central dispute was regarding the Civil Court's jurisdiction, with the tenants contending that the land was agricultural and only a Revenue Court had jurisdiction. While the Trial Court dismissed this jurisdictional objection in 1976 and later decreed the suit in favor of the landlord in 1981, the First Appellate Court reversed this, holding that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction because the land had not been declared non-agricultural under Section 143 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (UPZALR Act).

The High Court, in its judgment partially accepted the landlord's second appeal but ultimately upheld the First Appellate Court's finding on jurisdiction, directing the return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for presentation before the appropriate forum, citing the absence of a Section 143 declaration.

The Supreme Court critically examined the High Court's decision, making several pivotal observations: The Apex Court emphasized on the undisputed fact that from the very beginning, the land was taken for a non-agricultural, commercial purpose (setting up a petrol pump) through a registered tenancy agreement. The respondents had also obtained all necessary permissions for this commercial use.

Then the crucial point was that the land in question was formally declared non-agricultural under Section 143 of the UPZALR Act during the pendency of the litigation. The temporary approval of converting the land was granted in 1975 (while the suit was pending), and the final order declaring the land non-agricultural was passed 1986, which was during the pendency of the appeal before the First Appellate Court.

The Apex Court reiterated the established legal principle that "appeal is continuance of proceedings and any developments which may take place during pendency of the appeal or suit, going to the root of the case, can always be taken notice of to avoid multiplicity of litigation", and held that both the First Appellate Court and the High Court failed to account for the subsequent declaration of the land as non-agricultural, which directly impacted jurisdictional competence.

Furthermore, the land was already declared non-agricultural by the time the First Appellate Court and High Court rendered their judgments, the Supreme Court concluded that the Revenue Court would no longer have jurisdiction. Instead, the Civil Court would possess the jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

The Surpeme Court firmly rejected the respondent's argument that the Section 143 declaration was invalid due to non-registration under Section 145 of the UPZALR Act, as it clarified that Section 145 places the duty to forward the declaration for registration on the Assistant Collector-in-charge, not the landowner, and that such registration is free of cost. The appellant could not be deprived of the benefits of the declaration due to any deficiency on the part of the officers.

Thus, Supreme Court found merit in the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and remitted the case back to the First Appellate Court for a decision on merits, directing it to decide the appeal within six months given that the litigation is 50-year old.

Coram: Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan.