The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notices to the Central and State governments regarding a public interest litigation (PIL) advocating that land disputes be adjudicated by legally trained professionals rather than revenue officials lacking formal legal education.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi also sought a response from the Law Commission of India on the matter. The court acknowledged the significance of the issue while raising institutional concerns, stating, “Point is very interesting also, but they will say it is for legislature.”
The PIL, filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, argued that the issue involves concerns about the separation of powers since executive officers continue to exercise quasi-judicial functions impacting civil rights.
The plea requested the creation of a dedicated Revenue Judicial Service and prescribed uniform minimum qualifications for officials deciding disputes related to land title, succession, inheritance, and possession.
The petitioner highlighted persistent delays and systemic problems in land adjudication at the grassroots level, noting frequent grievances during district visits. The PIL urged the apex court to direct the Centre and States to establish a Revenue Judicial Service cadre, mandate minimum legal qualifications, and provide judicial training to officers adjudicating land disputes.
It also called for declaring adjudication by non-legally trained officials impermissible and for High Court supervision of these adjudicatory mechanisms.
According to the petition, the current system, mostly handled by revenue and consolidation officers, suffers structural deficiencies due to lack of formal legal training among such authorities.
“Nearly 66 per cent of the civil cases are related to land disputes. The key lacuna is that land disputes are adjudicated by the officers lacking formal legal education and training like PCS-J, resulting in erroneous and inconsistent decisions. This also increases the burden on the judiciary due to frequent challenges,” the PIL stated.
It added that this framework causes arbitrariness, inconsistent outcomes, and systemic delays, thereby violating fundamental rights. The plea continued, “The present system causes widespread and continuing injury to citizens by subjecting the adjudication of land disputes to revenue officers without legal background, resulting in arbitrary, inconsistent, erroneous decisions. This leads to prolonged uncertainty over property rights, restricts the use and transfer of land, increases litigation and costs, and denies effective access to justice, thereby infringing the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.”
The petition pointed out that revenue officers, drawn from diverse academic backgrounds and often burdened with administrative duties such as law and order, lack the necessary time, training, and institutional independence for judicial decision-making. Frequent transfers disrupt hearing continuity and cause delays, while exposure to local pressures and executive control raise concerns about impartiality.
The plea also sought nationwide uniformity in the adjudicatory framework, stating that divergent practices across States undermine equality before the law.
“Land disputes across India involve similar questions of title, succession, limitation, adverse possession, and interpretation of property laws. Since the nature of these disputes is uniform, the standards governing the competence and independence of adjudicators must also be uniform. Allowing different States to follow divergent approaches in matters affecting identical civil rights results in inconsistency, unpredictability, and unequal protection of laws,” the petition concluded.