Civil Court Can't Determine Agricultural Land Boundary Based On Advocate Commissioner's Report: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that where the real controversy in a suit for injunction is the boundary between two adjoining agricultural holdings, the Civil Court cannot settle that boundary on a map prepared by an Advocate Commissioner.
It held that Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 provides a statutory mechanism of survey and demarcation before the competent Revenue Authority.
Justice Anil Kumar-X held,
“..where the substance of the dispute requires determination of the actual revenue boundary between two agricultural holdings, the remedy provided under the U.P. Revenue Code is not merely an alternative remedy but is a remedy specifically designed for determination of such dispute. The Civil Court, while exercising its jurisdiction in a suit for injunction, cannot ordinarily undertake the statutory function of survey and demarcation merely by relying upon the report or map prepared by an Advocate Commissioner.”
It was held that,
“A plaintiff cannot confer jurisdiction upon a Civil Court by simply describing a dispute regarding demarcation of agricultural land as a suit for injunction.”
The plaintiffs sued in 2001 at Hathras for a permanent injunction over 0.60 acre of Khasra No. 815 at Mauja Sherpur, alleging that the defendants, recorded over the adjoining Khasra No. 816 to the south, were trying to build on the strip. The defendants pleaded that the plaintiffs had drawn the southern boundary of Gata No. 815 wrongly, taking into it parts of Gata Nos. 816 and 817.
The Trial Court decreed the suit in 2023, holding that the plaint map tallied with the revenue map and the Amin's report, and described the decreed land by boundary points and by measurements of 30 Kadi on the eastern and western sides and 20 Kadi on the northern and southern sides. The First Appellate Court affirmed the order of the Trial Court.
In second appeal, the defendants argued that the dispute was in substance a boundary dispute reserved to the Revenue Court, no statutory demarcation had been carried out, and the Advocate Commissioner whose map the courts below relied on was never examined. The plaintiffs argued that concurrent findings of fact could not be re-appreciated under Section 100 CPC.
The Court held that the bar on interfering with concurrent findings is not absolute and does not shield a decree challenged on the ground that the Court assumed a jurisdiction the statute vests in another authority.
It held that a Commissioner's report may carry evidentiary value, but cannot stand in place of a statutory survey by the Revenue Authority.
“Where the Gata number is admitted but the controversy is regarding the actual boundary or extent of land falling within that Gata, the question is essentially one of demarcation. Such determination has to be made in accordance with the statutory procedure prescribed for the purpose.”
The Court held that the function of the Revenue Authority is not merely a technical procedure. For determination of boundary of an agricultural plot, it held, various things need to be seen which require the expertise and statutory mechanism in power of the Revenue Authorities.
“If a disputed boundary between two agricultural Gatas is determined in a civil suit merely on the basis of a Commissioner's report, the Civil Court would, in substance, be undertaking a function which the legislature has specifically entrusted to the Revenue Authority. It may also create a possibility of inconsistent determinations concerning the same revenue holdings.”
The Court held that by fixing dimensions the decree had recognised a specific piece of land as part of Gata No. 815 and thereby settled the extent of the defendants' adjoining Gata No. 816, making it more than merely prohibitory.
“The availability of a specific statutory remedy for determination of the disputed agricultural boundary was a material circumstance which required the Civil Court to refrain from granting an injunction in a manner which effectively determined that boundary. The Civil Court could not, by merely granting a decree of injunction, indirectly undertake the exercise of demarcation which the statute has entrusted to the competent Revenue Authority.”
Setting aside the judgments and decrees of both courts below, the Court left the plaintiffs free to pursue their remedy under the U.P. Revenue Code, and allowed the appeal.
Case Title: Hamid Khan And 4 Others vs. Jwala Prasad And 13 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 663
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 663
Counsel for Appellant :- Nipun Singh, senior advocate assisted by Hemant Tyagi, Sumit Suri
Counsel for Respondent :- Dushyant Singh, Mahesh Chand,