Bar to jurisdiction under Section 4 of Bombay Revenue Act – What civil courts cannot do.
Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act-1876, Section-4 Bar of certain suits.-
Subject to the exceptions hereinafter appearing, no Civil Court shall exercise jurisdiction as to any of the following matters:
(d) claims against the Governement
- (1) to be entered in the revenue survey or settlement records or village papers as liable for the land-revenue, or as superior holder, inferior holder, occupant or tenant, or
- (2) to have any entry made in any record of a revenue survey or settlement, or
- (3) to have any such entry either omitted or amended ;
(f) claims against Government- to hold land wholly or partially free from payment of land-revenue, or to receive payments charged on or payable out of the land-revenue, or to set aside any cess or rate authorized by Government under the provisions of any law for the time being in force, or respecting, the occupation of waste or vacant land belonging to Government;
A- claims against the government or any revenue officer for remission or suspension of land revenue or for a declaration that crops have failed in any year;
B- suit to set aside or modify decision determining village site or abadi made by the collector or a survey officer under the bombay land revenue code1879, or by any revenue officer under any other law for the time being in force;
C- suit to compel the performance of any duty imposed on any revenue officer by or under any law relating to land revenue;
(G) claims regarding boundaries fixed under Bombay Act No. 1 of 1865, or any other law for the time being in force, or to set aside any order passed by a competent officer under any such law with regard to boundary-marks: Proviso.-Provided that if any person claim to hold land wholly or partially exempt from payment of land-revenue under-
(h) any enactment for the time being in force expressly creating an exemption not before existing in favour of an individual or of any class of persons, or expressly confirming such an exemption on the ground of its being shown in a public record, or of its having existed for a specified term of years, or
(i) an instrument or sanad given by or by order of the Governor of Bombay in Council under Bombay Act No. II of 1863, section one, clause first, or. Bombay Act No. VII of 1803, section two, clause first, or
(j) any other written grant by the British Government expressly creating or confirming such exemption, or
(k) a judgment by a Court of law, or an adjudication duly passed by a competent officer under Bombay Regulation 17 of 1827, chapter X, or under Act No. 11 of 1852, which declares the particular property in dispute to be exempt; such claim shall be cognizable in the Civil Courts.
It is clear from the above provision of Section 4 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act that no suit can be filed in a civil court for any dispute arising out of the performance of duty by a Revenue Officer or any entry made in the Revenue Records.
Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876
Section 4 - Bar of certain suits
This section establishes the exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue Officers and Revenue Courts in certain matters relating to revenue. It prohibits the Civil Courts from entertaining suits or applications in such matters unless an exception is expressly provided by law.
Case study: 1
(1) Ramesh Patel vs. State of Maharashtra and others
Case:Ramesh Patel, a farmer from Nashik district, discovered that his name had been omitted from the 7/12 Utara (record of rights) in the revenue records. The land he had claimed belonged to his ancestors and was under his cultivation was now registered only in the name of his cousin Suresh Patel. Believing this to be a fraudulent omission, Ramesh filed a suit in the civil court seeking a declaration of ownership and rectification of the revenue records.
Issue: Whether a civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for rectification of revenue records when the revenue officers have such jurisdiction under the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876?
Decision: The Court ruled that: Determination of title to property may fall within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.
However, rectification of revenue entries, especially when not accompanied by a genuine dispute of ownership, falls within the jurisdiction of the Revenue Officers only.
Since Ramesh did not seek a statement of ownership based on title documents or registered conveyances, but only sought a correction of the record, the suit was liable to be dismissed by virtue of Section 4.
The Civil Court dismissed the suit on the ground of jurisdictional bar.
Case study 2
(2) Jurisdictional belt in land assessment dispute
Kalpana Deshmukh vs. State of Maharashtra
Facts: Kalpana Deshmukh owned agricultural land in Pune. The local revenue officer reassessed the land and imposed higher land revenue due to alleged changes in the use of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes. Kalpana believed that this assessment was incorrect and arbitrary, and filed a suit in the civil court challenging the revised land revenue demand.
Issue: Can a civil court entertain a suit challenging a revenue assessment?
Legal Provision: Under Section 4, any matter relating to revenue assessment, if entrusted to the revenue officers under law, is outside the jurisdiction of the civil courts.
Decision: The Civil Court dismissed the suit, holding: Revenue assessment and classification fall entirely within the jurisdiction of the Revenue Department. The Civil Court cannot review revenue assessments, as they are barred by Section 4 unless there is a clear plea and proof of fraud or malicious intent.
Key Takeaway: Issues like land classification, revenue assessment and land revenue disputes should be raised before revenue officers and not before civil courts.
Case study 3
(3) Exception to the Twelve - a controversial title
Ravindra Joshi vs Ganesh Shinde and State of Maharashtra
Facts: Ravindra Joshi claimed ownership of a piece of land on the basis of a registered sale deed. The land remained registered in the name of the seller, Ganesh Shinde, who refused to cooperate in the conversion proceedings. Ravindra filed a civil suit for an injunction to declare the title and restrain Ganesh from interfering with his possession.
Issue: Is a civil court prohibited from hearing a claim involving ownership and possession, even if revenue entries are indirectly involved?
Legal Provision: Although Section 4 bars suits in cases falling under the jurisdiction of revenue officers, the civil courts retain jurisdiction in cases relating to ownership, title or possession, which are real civil rights.
Decision: The Civil Court accepted the suit, ruled: The plaintiff is not merely seeking to amend the revenue records, but is claiming civil rights over the immovable property. Section 4 does not bar claims involving declaration of ownership, even if the revenue records are subsequently altered.
Key Takeaway: Civil courts can decide disputes relating to title, possession and ownership, and Section 4 does not apply when the main issue is not an administrative revenue function but a civil right.
Conclusion:
This case shows that while the civil court can decide disputes of ownership or title, routine or administrative issues relating to revenue entries must be resolved before the revenue authorities, as per Section 4 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876.
Welcome to the lexedge, please don't spam in comments.