SC to examine PIL for dedicated revenue judicial service for land disputes
A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi were hearing advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay’s plea arguing that adjudication of title deed, succession, inheritance, possession and other property rights by revenue and consolidation officers devoid of formal legal education and judicial training violates Articles 14, 21 and 50 of the Constitution.
During the hearing, the Bench led by CJI Kant said: “This is also very interesting. But they will say this is for the legislature.”
Also Read: SC asks Center to consider amending law on termination of pregnancy of rape victims
Appearing in person, Upadhyay argued that the issue had emerged as one of the most pressing concerns raised by litigants in various regions, especially rural India. “No, I go to 2-3 districts every week. Most of the demands are related to this issue. The lawsuit is still ongoing. Chakbandi Adhikari (consolidation officer) for 40 years to determine which gift deed is valid. “This also touches on the separation of powers,” he said.
“The issue notification may be sent back within four weeks,” the Bench, led by CJI Surya Kant, while orally observing that the issues raised could fall within the legislative arena to a large extent, directed.
According to the petition, nearly 66 percent of civil cases in India relate to land and property disputes, but such matters are often decided in the first instance by senior executives without formal legal training, resulting in inconsistent, delayed and legally flawed decisions.
He argued that vesting judicial power in non-judicial officials under the control of the executive undermines the constitutional mandate to separate the judiciary from the executive under Article 50.
The PIL sought directions to the Union and state governments to constitute an independent judicial cadre for land disputes, prescribe uniform legal qualifications and judicial training for adjudicating officers, and ensure review of such decisions by the respective High Courts.
By the Allahabad High Court in Chandra Bhan vs. Reference was made to the principles set out in Deputy Director of Consolidation (2005) which recommended the creation of a Revenue Judicial Service for the resolution of complex land disputes.
Also Read: Our Aim Unitech: To give homes to 22,000 home buyers from SC
The petition also argued that the current framework, with its roots in colonial revenue administration, leads to systemic miscarriages of justice, imposes avoidable appeal burdens on constitutional courts, and disproportionately harms citizens whose livelihoods depend on land rights.
