Civil Court Cannot Determine Agricultural Boundary by Injunction Decree When U.P. Revenue Code Provides Specific Remedy, Rules Allahabad HC

Allahabad High Court sets aside concurrent decrees in a suit over Gata Nos. 815 and 816 at Hathras, holding the Civil Court assumed Revenue Court jurisdiction by fixing dimensions of disputed agricultural land.

The Allahabad High Court has allowed a second appeal and set aside two concurrent decrees of permanent injunction that had been passed by civil courts at Hathras in a long-running agricultural land dispute. Justice Anil Kumar-X, sitting singly, held that the Civil Court could not have finally determined the boundary between Gata No. 815 and Gata No. 816 at Mauja Sherpur, Tehsil Sadabad, District Hathras, merely by relying on an Advocate Commissioner's map and the revenue map, when Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 provides a specific statutory mechanism for demarcation of agricultural holdings. The judgment, delivered on 31 August 2026 in Second Appeal No. 475 of 2026, leaves the plaintiffs free to pursue the statutory remedy under the Revenue Code.

The Suit and What Each Side Claimed

The litigation began with Civil Suit No. 71 of 2001, filed by Jwala Prasad (since deceased) and others before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hathras. The plaintiffs claimed ownership and possession over 0.60 acre within Khasra No. 815, delineated in the plaint map by the boundary points Aa, Ba, Sa, Da, Ya and Ra, and sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendants — Hamid Khan and four others — from interfering with that possession and from raising construction on the disputed strip.

The defendants denied the claim. Their case was that the plaintiffs had incorrectly drawn the southern boundary of Gata No. 815 so as to include within it a portion of Gata No. 816, which belonged exclusively to the defendants. They further contended that the land shown by the plaintiffs through points Aa, Ba, Ya, Ra and Sa was actually part of Gata No. 817, and the portion shown by points Ba, Sa, Da and Ya formed part of Gata No. 816, including a drain used as a passage by the defendants.

The Trial Court framed nine issues, including whether the plaintiffs were owners in possession of Gata No. 815, whether the disputed property formed part of Gata No. 815 or Gata No. 816, and whether the suit was barred by Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, or Sections 38 and 41 of the Specific Relief Act.

Concurrent Findings Below

At trial, the plaintiffs examined Yatendra Kumar as P.W.-1 and Anil Kumar Sharma as P.W.-2, and relied on records of rights and the revenue map. The defendants examined Hamid Khan as D.W.-1, Anwar as D.W.-2 and Chaman Kha as D.W.-3, and produced the certified copy of the plaint and judgment in O.S. No. 94 of 1988 (Nasiruddin v. Gram Sabha and Others), the revenue map, and the Advocate Commissioner's report (Paper No. 15-C).

The Trial Court found that the disputed property shown in the revenue map and the plaint map were the same, corroborated by the Amin's report and the oral testimony of the plaintiffs' witnesses. It held that the defendants had nowhere denied that Gata No. 815 belonged to the plaintiffs. The judgment in O.S. No. 94 of 1988 was found irrelevant because that case concerned Gata No. 817, not Gata No. 815. All issues were decided against the defendants. By its judgment and decree dated 29 March 2023, the Trial Court decreed the suit and specifically described the disputed property as a portion of Gata No. 815 measuring 30 Kadi on each of the eastern and western sides and 20 Kadi on each of the northern and southern sides.

The defendants appealed. The First Appellate Court — Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Hathras — framed three points of determination arising from Issues Nos. 1 and 2. It affirmed the Trial Court's findings, holding that the plaintiffs had successfully established ownership and possession over the disputed property, and that the land formed part of Gata No. 815. Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2023 was dismissed by judgment and order dated 2 April 2026, with the decree following on 10 April 2026.

The Jurisdictional Challenge in the Second Appeal

Before the High Court, counsel for the appellants pressed two main arguments. The first was that the suit was not maintainable under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, because an equally efficacious remedy was available through the usual mode of proceeding. The second, and more fundamental, was that the actual controversy was a boundary dispute between Gata Nos. 815 and 816, and such disputes regarding determination and demarcation of agricultural holding boundaries fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue Court under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The Advocate Commissioner whose map was relied upon was never examined before the Trial Court, and no statutory revenue demarcation was conducted.

The respondents answered that concurrent findings of fact cannot ordinarily be disturbed in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, that both courts had relied not on the Commissioner's report alone but also on the revenue map, and that the appellants had failed to demonstrate any substantial question of law.

Whether a Substantial Question of Law Arose

Justice Anil Kumar-X first addressed the scope of Section 100 CPC. The court noted that a second appeal does not lie merely because another view on appreciation of evidence is possible. However, relying on State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Dayal, (2019) 8 SCC 637, the court observed that a concurrent finding can be interfered with where it is recorded contrary to a provision of law, is based on no evidence, is based on misreading of material documentary evidence, or is such that no judicially acting judge could reasonably have reached it.

The court drew a distinction between a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence and a challenge to the legal capacity of the evidence to determine the question in issue. Where a finding is based on evidence legally incapable of resolving the dispute, and such finding affects the substantive rights of the parties, a substantial question of law arises. The court held: “The bar against interference with concurrent findings of fact is not absolute.”

Applying that distinction, the court held that the appellants were not merely asking for re-appreciation of evidence. Their contention went to whether the Civil Court possessed the legal competence to determine, in the manner it had, the disputed boundary between two agricultural Gatas. That, the court held, was a question of jurisdiction, not a question of fact.

The substantial question of law was accordingly framed as: whether the courts below erred in law in entertaining and deciding the dispute regarding demarcation of the boundary between Gata Nos. 815 and 816, which was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the competent Revenue Court under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (Section 41 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901), and consequently whether the injunction decree passed by the Civil Court was legally sustainable.

Civil Court Jurisdiction and the Statutory Demarcation Remedy

Justice Anil Kumar-X then analysed the interplay between Section 9 CPC, Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, and Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

Section 9 CPC confers jurisdiction on the Civil Court to try all suits of a civil nature except those whose cognizance is expressly or impliedly barred. The court held that this jurisdiction is itself subject to exclusion where the legislature has created a special mechanism for a particular dispute. Jurisdiction must be examined with reference to the substance of the dispute, not the form of the relief claimed. A plaintiff cannot confer jurisdiction on the Civil Court by describing a boundary dispute over agricultural land as a suit for injunction.

Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, the court held, operates in the same direction: where an effective statutory remedy is available for determination of the very dispute that forms the foundation of the claimed relief, the discretionary relief of injunction ought not to be granted by bypassing that remedy.

Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 specifically provides a statutory mechanism for determination of boundary disputes by the competent Revenue Authority, which must examine revenue records, field maps and other material and undertake the prescribed survey and demarcation process. The court held that this remedy was not merely an alternative remedy but one specifically designed for determination of agricultural boundary disputes. An Advocate Commissioner appointed in a civil suit may assist the court and his report may carry evidentiary value, but his report cannot be equated with a statutory survey or demarcation carried out by the competent Revenue Authority.

The Decree Had the Effect of Deciding the Boundary

The court then examined the Trial Court's decree more closely. The decree did not simply restrain the defendants from interfering with Gata No. 815 in the abstract. It identified the property by its Gata number, its boundary points and specific dimensions: 30 Kadi on the eastern and western sides and 20 Kadi on the northern and southern sides. By fixing those dimensions, the decree necessarily determined what land fell within Gata No. 815 and, correspondingly, affected the extent and boundary of the adjoining Gata No. 816 belonging to the appellants.

The court held that Order VII Rule 3 CPC, which requires a plaint concerning immovable property to describe the property sufficiently for identification, does not confer on the Civil Court a power to conclusively determine a disputed revenue boundary. The decree was therefore not merely prohibitory in character; its terms had the effect of determining the identity and extent of the disputed land and affected the proprietary and possessory rights of the appellants in Gata No. 816.

The court noted the practical difficulty this creates. If a disputed boundary between two agricultural Gatas is determined in a civil suit on the basis of a Commissioner's report, the Civil Court would in substance be undertaking a function the legislature has entrusted to the Revenue Authority, and the risk of inconsistent determinations concerning the same revenue holdings would arise. The determination of an agricultural boundary requires consideration of revenue records, field maps, measurements, the location of adjoining holdings and the prescribed method of survey and demarcation — matters that the Revenue Authorities are statutorily equipped to handle.

In the present case, the plaintiffs' claim was founded on Gata No. 815, while the appellants' rights in Gata No. 816 were directly involved. The core question was what land actually constituted Gata No. 815 and whether the land claimed by the plaintiffs encroached upon Gata No. 816. Once the Trial Court proceeded to determine the disputed land by fixing its dimensions and boundaries without a statutory demarcation by the Revenue Authority, the decree travelled beyond the scope of a simple injunction.

Outcome

Justice Anil Kumar-X set aside the judgment and order dated 2 April 2026 and the decree dated 10 April 2026 passed by the First Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2023, and also set aside the judgment and order dated 29 March 2023 and its decree passed by the Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 71 of 2001. The second appeal was allowed. It was left open to the plaintiffs to avail the remedy available under the U.P. Revenue Code in accordance with law.