The Supreme Court on Thursday sought a response from the Center and governments of all states and union territories on a petition seeking setting up of a Revenue Judicial Service (RJS) to enable adjudication of land disputes by qualified legal professionals.
“This is a very interesting point,” a bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalia Bagchi said while issuing notice on a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay.
However, the court raised a note of caution. “It can be said that this is a matter of legislative jurisdiction,” the bench added, responding to the petition seeking minimum legal qualification and training for public officials (tax collectors, sub-divisional officers, tehsildars) who adjudicate land disputes (most of whom have no legal background).
Upadhyay, who argued personally, said the issue had previously been taken up by the Allahabad High Court in a 2005 judgment in Chandra Bhan v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur, and asked the court to direct the Center and states to implement that judgment. He said there is a real problem as approximately 66% of civil cases relate to land disputes, which are handled by officers who are not legally trained. This results in incorrect and inconsistent decisions that increase the burden on the judiciary due to repeated challenges.
“The harm to citizens is very great,” Upadhyay said, adding that civil disputes decided in this way lead to prolonged uncertainty over property rights and restricted land use and transfer for years. He added that it also increases litigation and costs and deprives citizens of effective access to justice.
The Allahabad High Court judgment, in the Chandra Bhan case, recognized that authorities charged with adjudicating land disputes perform a judicial function involving complex legal questions.
The court posted the order four weeks later to examine responses received from the Center and states/union territories along with the Law Commission of India, which was also added as a party to Upadhyay’s petition.
