Civil Courts have jurisdiction over disputes between non-tribals in Scheduled Areas: Supreme Court

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh held that the exclusion of Civil Courts in Scheduled Areas cannot bar suits between exclusively non-tribal parties.

The Supreme Court has held that a Civil Court in Telangana (formerly Andhra Pradesh) had jurisdiction to try a partition suit even though the land lay within a Scheduled Area, because both parties to the dispute were non-tribals. In Mukkera Venkata Ratnam & Ors v. Vantasala China Venkateswarlu & Ors, decided on 6 August 2026, a Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh set aside a Telangana High Court order that had ousted the Civil Court’s jurisdiction.

The Court found that the protection built into the Fifth Schedule and the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act 1972 is directed at Scheduled Tribe people, not at every transaction merely because it is situated in a notified geographical area. It restored the second appeal to the High Court for decision on merits.

How a family partition suit reached the Supreme Court

All parties descend from a common ancestor, Mukkera Muthaiah, who died in 1979. The plaintiffs—his grandsons and their mother—filed a civil suit on 6 July 1998 seeking partition and separate possession after learning of the extent of Muthaiah’s land holdings. The defendants resisted through written statements.

By judgment and decree dated 29 October 2003, the trial court dismissed the suit. It found that partition among the co-sharers had occurred during the lifetimes of Muthaiah and his son Hanumanthaiah, with each branch in distinct possession since 1975-76 and separately paying land revenue. On jurisdiction, the trial court held that since both parties were non-tribals and no tribal interest was involved, Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure vested it with jurisdiction. It nonetheless dismissed the suit as barred by limitation under Article 110 of the Limitation Act.

The First Appellate Court, by judgment dated 1 December 2008, reversed the trial court. It held the documents relied on to infer prior partition were uncertified and unreliable, treated the properties as joint family properties, and confirmed that the Civil Court had jurisdiction over disputes connected to property in scheduled areas.

The defendants took the matter in second appeal. On 1 February 2022, a Single Judge of the Telangana High Court overturned the First Appellate Court on a single ground—jurisdiction—relying on the Supreme Court’s order in Nagarjuna Gramin Bank v. Medi Narayana. That decision was read as holding that from 1972 onwards the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in the Scheduled Areas was excluded.

Was Nagarjuna a binding precedent?

The Court first asked whether Nagarjuna laid down any proposition of law. Counsel for the appellant, Mr Amit Pai, argued it did not, because its conclusion rested not on legal analysis of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act 1972 but on a decision taken by a high-powered committee of the State. Mr Vikas Bansal appeared as amicus curiae, and Ms Devina Sehgal, AOR, was heard for Telangana.

Working through authorities on how to identify the ratio of a decision, the Court cited the Privy Council in Read v. The Bishop of Lincoln, the three-judge Bench in Abdul Kayoom v. CIT, and State of Gujarat v. Utility Users’ Welfare Assn., which adopted Wambaugh’s “Inversion Test” to isolate what is necessary for a decision. It also relied on Career Institute Educational Society v. Om Shree Thakurji Educational Society.

Examining the earlier order in Nagarjuna, the Court found the situation had been contemplated in its own para 3, where it suggested either an amendment or a notification to address disputes involving non-Scheduled people. The order relied on by the High Court came after the State committee resolved that the 1972 Act would not apply to scheduled areas.

The Court concluded the exercise there was one of judicial deference to the executive and legislature on a question ordinarily within their domain—extending or withdrawing a court’s jurisdiction. It was “not a case of either adjudicating or returning a positive finding on a proposition of law.” The Court held Nagarjuna laid down no proposition of law and was not binding precedent.

Why the Scheduled Area protection does not reach non-tribals

The Court traced the constitutional and legislative history of protection for tribals, from the Scheduled Districts Act 1874 and the Andhra Pradesh Agency Rules 1924 through the Fifth Schedule and Article 244(1). It drew on Samatha v. State of A.P. and Constituent Assembly debates to describe the sustained concern to protect tribal land, customs and autonomy from exploitation by outsiders.

The 1972 Act came into force on 1 November 1972 in all of Andhra Pradesh except areas notified as scheduled areas, by the Governor’s notification dated 30 October 1972. The Court accepted that the disputed land falls within a Scheduled Area.

Its central point was that notification of a Scheduled Area is directed at the people of the Scheduled Tribes living there, not at everything within the geographical boundary. Where both parties are non-tribals, subjecting them to the agency-court regime serves no purpose connected to its object.

The Court examined this through Article 14. Applying the reasonable-classification tests in State of Madras v. V.G. Row, Chitra Ghosh v. Union of India and the seven-judge Bench in State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, it found no rational nexus in compelling non-tribal parties, with no fetters of succession or partition among the co-sharers, to follow procedures never intended for them. A blanket exclusion of Civil Courts for such disputes could not stand.

The Court held the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute and that the High Court had erred in holding otherwise on the basis of the 1972 exclusion.

Order

The Court clarified that its conclusion applies only to pending cases and those arising in future. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts stands restored in respect of civil transactions involving exclusively non-tribal parties. Where even one party is a tribal residing in the Scheduled Areas, the Agency Courts retain jurisdiction.

The impugned High Court judgment was set aside and the second appeal restored to the High Court to be decided on merits consistent with this judgment. Parties were directed to appear before the High Court on 24 August 2026, with the hearing expedited. Delay was condoned and leave granted. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.