New Delhi [India], March 30 : A Public Interest Litigation has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking the establishment of a dedicated Revenue Judicial Service Cadre for adjudication of land disputes across India.
The petition, filed by advocate and social activist Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, calls for structural reforms in the existing system of land dispute resolution.
The plea primarily urges the apex court to direct the Centre and State governments to constitute a specialised judicial cadre to handle disputes relating to title, succession, inheritance, possession and other property rights.
It relies on the Allahabad High Court's judgment in Chandra Bhan vs Deputy Director of Consolidation (2005), which had recommended the creation of such a framework.
The petitioner has further sought directions to prescribe minimum legal qualifications and a comprehensive judicial training module, in consultation with the High Courts, for officers adjudicating land disputes.
In addition, the petition seeks a declaration that adjudication of property rights by public servants lacking formal legal education and judicial training is legally impermissible. It also prays that such adjudication be placed under the supervision and monitoring of the respective High Courts to ensure consistency, independence and adherence to legal principles.
The petitioner has contended that land disputes constitute a substantial portion of civil litigation in India, yet they are currently decided by revenue and consolidation officers who often do not possess formal legal education.
As per the plea, this results in inconsistent, arbitrary and legally unsustainable decisions, which in turn lead to prolonged litigation, repeated appeals and an increased burden on the judiciary.
Highlighting the constitutional dimensions, the petition argues that the existing system violates Article 14 by permitting arbitrary and unequal decision-making, as similarly placed litigants may receive different outcomes depending on the legal understanding of the officer.
It further contends that the lack of legal expertise and procedural fairness in adjudication undermines Article 21, which guarantees fair and effective access to justice.
The plea also raises concerns regarding the separation of powers under Article 50, stating that entrusting judicial functions to executive officers--who remain subject to administrative control, transfers and disciplinary mechanisms compromises judicial independence. It argues that such a framework creates a risk of external influence, local pressure and institutional bias in decision-making.
Further, the petitioner has pointed out practical difficulties in the current system, including a lack of continuity due to frequent transfers of officers, the absence of consistent legal training, and the dual role of revenue officials who perform both administrative and adjudicatory functions.
These factors, the plea states, adversely affect the quality, consistency and timeliness of decisions in land disputes, many of which directly impact livelihood and economic stability.
The petition also notes that despite the Allahabad High Court's 2005 ruling recognising the need for legally trained adjudicators in such matters, the directions have not been implemented uniformly across the country.
It argues that since land disputes across states involve similar legal questions, a uniform national framework is necessary to ensure consistency, predictability and equal protection of laws.
Through this PIL, the petitioner has sought comprehensive reforms to ensure that adjudication of land disputes is carried out by legally qualified and judicially trained professionals within an independent framework, thereby strengthening the rule of law and improving access to justice for citizens.