Tehsil-Level Revenue Courts in Crisis. They Need Urgent Reform

By Mohammad Amin Mir

The foundational purpose of Revenue Courts at the tehsil level in India, especially in regions like Jammu & Kashmir, is to provide quick, local and cost-effective resolution to land disputes. However, in recent years, these courts have witnessed a steady erosion of credibility and public confidence. A striking trend has emerged: a significant number of land-related cases, which should be resolved within Tehsil Revenue Courts, are being transferred to Deputy Commissioner (DC) offices or civil courts, thus bypassing the tehsildar-level mechanism entirely.

This growing disillusionment with tehsil-level courts raises pressing questions. Why have these courts failed to live up to their statutory responsibilities? What institutional weaknesses plague them? And, most importantly, what can be done to restore the people’s faith in these grassroots adjudicatory systems?

This article explores the reasons behind this systemic failure, analyzes the consequences of such a breakdown, and suggests robust remedies and actionable reforms.

Understanding the Role of Revenue Courts at the Tehsil Level

Revenue courts at the tehsil level, typically presided over by Tehsildars or Naib Tehsildars, are statutorily empowered to handle a variety of land-related disputes. These include boundary disputes, partition of holdings, correction of Revenue records, possession issues, encroachments, tenancy disputes, and implementation of mutation orders.

Their core appeal lies in proximity to the dispute area, faster disposal times, lower litigation costs, and specialized knowledge of local revenue laws and land record systems.

Alarming Decline in Trust: An Emerging Pattern

Despite their potential, these courts are witnessing a marked decline in public trust. Increasingly, litigants are preferring to file petitions in the DC courts or even directly approach the civil judiciary, even for minor land disputes. This shift reflects a deep-seated mistrust in the impartiality, efficiency, and legal competence of tehsil-level revenue courts.

A quick survey of recent case data in districts such as Anantnag, Baramulla, and Kathua reveals that more than 60% of land-related disputes are either escalated to DC courts or are being fought in civil courts—often at great cost to poor litigants.

Key Reasons Behind the Erosion of Credibility

1. Corruption and Favouritism

One of the most damning allegations against Revenue Courts at the tehsil level is the prevalence of corruption. Several tehsildars and naib tehsildars are accused—sometimes formally, often informally—of accepting bribes for favorable orders, delaying cases to harass one party, or helping local land mafias regularize illegal possessions. In many cases, Revenue officers have allegedly become silent facilitators of land grabs by politically connected individuals.

2. Lack of Legal Training and Judicial Temperament

Tehsildars, though trained in revenue administration, often lack sufficient training in judicial principles, case law application, and procedural fairness. Their orders are frequently overturned on appeal, not only due to substantive errors but also because of procedural lapses—like not giving both parties equal opportunity to be heard, failing to record reasons, or bypassing mandatory processes like spot inspections.

3. Delays and Backlogs

While Revenue courts were conceptualized as fast-track venues, they are now plagued by chronic delays. Adjournments are routine. Orders take months, sometimes years. Files are frequently “misplaced” or not traceable. Such systemic delays render these courts no better than congested civil courts.

4. Lack of Transparency in Hearings and Orders

Unlike civil courts where orders are published and available for scrutiny, revenue court proceedings are opaque. Orders are often dictated orally or issued without signatures, leading to suspicions of manipulation. There is little accountability or peer review.

5. Influence of Local Power Brokers

In rural areas, revenue officers often work under immense pressure from local politicians, police officials, or influential landlords. Their decisions are allegedly shaped by these power brokers, undermining neutrality and shaking public confidence.

6. Absence of Digitization and Case Monitoring

Unlike higher courts which have online tracking of cases, revenue courts in many districts still rely on manual registers. There is no central database of cases, orders, or pendency statistics. This makes it easy to manipulate records, delay proceedings, or even deny the existence of certain cases.

7. Poor Legal Representation for Marginalized Litigants

Poor and illiterate litigants often have no access to legal counsel in revenue courts. The opposing parties—usually encroachers or wealthy landowners—hire professional legal drafters or retired officials to exploit technicalities, leading to miscarriage of justice.

Consequences of This Breakdown

– Increased Burden on Higher Courts

As more cases bypass tehsil-level courts, DC courts and civil courts are swamped with land-related cases that could have been easily settled locally. This results in a cascading burden on the entire judicial system.

– Prolonged Disputes and Escalation of Violence

Land disputes that are not resolved timely often escalate into physical altercations, even murders. In rural Kashmir, land disputes are a leading cause of interpersonal violence and family feuds.

– Economic Stagnation Due to Title Uncertainty

Unresolved land disputes prevent legal registration of property, deter investment in agriculture, delay bank loans, and hinder rural economic development.

– Loss of Faith in Governance

When local adjudicatory systems are viewed as corrupt or ineffective, it weakens the broader social contract between state and citizen.

Remedies and Steps for Reform

If tehsil-level courts are to regain their intended role, a mix of administrative, structural, and legal reforms must be urgently pursued.

1. Mandatory Legal and Judicial Training for Tehsildars

Newly appointed tehsildars must undergo a dedicated training program on principles of natural justice, evidence law, procedural fairness, and the Land Revenue Act. Periodic refresher courses must also be institutionalized.

2. Video Recording and Publication of Orders

All hearings in revenue courts should be video recorded, and final orders must be uploaded on district administration websites. This will ensure transparency and deter manipulation.

3. Time-Bound Disposal Norms

A strict time frame—say, 60 to 90 days—should be imposed for disposing of land dispute cases. Delay beyond this limit must be reportable to the DC with reasons.

4. Case Tracking System and Digitization

All revenue litigation must be entered into a centralized portal with case status, hearing dates, and scanned copies of all orders. Jammu & Kashmir’s Revenue Department can develop such a system in collaboration with NIC or similar agencies.

5. Decentralized Legal Aid Cells at Tehsil Offices

To assist poor litigants, legal aid desks staffed with trained paralegals or revenue retirees should be made available at every tehsil office. They can help draft applications, represent litigants, and ensure procedural compliance.

6. Performance Evaluation of Tehsildars Based on Judicial Output

Currently, tehsildars are assessed mainly on administrative performance. This must change. Judicial performance—including number of cases disposed, quality of orders, rate of appeals reversed—should become part of their Annual Performance Report.

7. Whistleblower Mechanisms and Anti-Corruption Vigilance

A helpline or portal should allow citizens to anonymously report corrupt practices in revenue courts. Anti-corruption teams must randomly audit tehsil-level orders and inspect files.

8. Judicial Backstopping by District Judges

A supervisory mechanism where district judges periodically review revenue court orders for legal integrity can significantly raise standards.

What Tehsildars Can Do: A Roadmap for Institutional Redemption

If tehsil-level courts are to recover credibility, tehsildars must lead the change from within. Here are concrete steps they can adopt:

Adopt a Zero-Tolerance Policy for Corruption: Publicly declare non-tolerance for bribes, ensure that order copies are issued without delay or demand for money.

Maintain a Daily Cause List and Display It Publicly: Transparency in scheduling builds trust and prevents allegations of favoritism.

Conduct Spot Visits for Boundary and Possession Disputes: Ground verification is crucial to fair adjudication. Tehsildars must personally visit disputed lands wherever necessary.

Write Detailed and Well-Reasoned Orders: Orders should clearly explain the facts, legal provisions invoked, and rationale for decision. A poorly reasoned order reflects incompetence and invites appeal.

Promote ADR and Pre-Litigation Settlements: Many family or neighbor disputes can be resolved through mediation. Tehsildars should act as facilitators of conciliation before proceeding to adversarial hearings.

Coordinate with Panchayats and Patwaris for Record Verification: Discrepancies in records often fuel disputes. Close collaboration with field staff can clarify issues early on.

Ensure Timely Service of Notices to All Parties: Non-service of notices is a major ground for appeal. A proper system of summons dispatch and acknowledgment should be maintained.

Conclusion: Reviving the People’s Court

The tehsil-level revenue court is not just an administrative institution—it is the common man’s courtroom. If these courts are allowed to decay, the entire pyramid of land governance crumbles. Poor farmers, landless laborers, and smallholders depend on these courts to safeguard their rights.

Restoring the credibility of tehsil-level courts will require not just reforms from above but a moral and professional renaissance among tehsildars themselves. With commitment, transparency, and judicial sensitivity, tehsil revenue courts can again become the swift, affordable, and just forums they were always meant to be.