The literature on legal pluralism highlights the presence of multiple legal systems in a social field as a ‘reality’. Works on forum shopping and shopping forums inform us about the choices that disputants and forums have, in choosing forums and disputes respectively, for a favourable outcome. Drawing from my research on land disputes in the northern part of India, I argue that these legal systems are singularly insufficient to resolve contentious land disputes. Therefore, they should be seen as inadequate parts of a larger legal arena where the plurality of legal systems become a ‘necessity’. This plurality provides an answer to the difficulties faced by state and non-state legal systems in resolving land disputes. This necessity of the plurality of the legal arena in cases of land disputes should be grappled with by comprehending how land is positioned in a complex of social, political, and economic relations. Unless this position of land is grasped and addressed, a solution to land disputes seems difficult to reach. Through an ethnographic study of the accounts of a dispute between two neighbours — Ramvilas Yadav and Sanjay Sav — I show the insufficiency of both the formal legal system of the state and the non-state adjudicating mechanism of the village.

有关法律多元化的文献强调社会领域中多种法律体系的存在是“现实”。关于论坛购物和购物论坛的研究告诉我们争论者和论坛在分别选择论坛和争议时的选择，以获得有利的结果。根据我对印度北部土地纠纷的研究，我认为这些法律制度不足以解决有争议的土地纠纷。因此，它们应该被视为更大的法律领域的不充分部分，在这个领域，多元化的法律制度成为“必要”。这种多元化为国家和非国家法律体系在解决土地纠纷方面面临的困难提供了答案。土地纠纷案件中法律舞台多元化的必要性应该通过理解土地在社会、政治和经济关系复合体中的定位来解决。除非土地的这一地位得到把握和解决，否则土地纠纷似乎很难得到解决。通过对拉姆维拉斯·亚达夫（Ramvilas Yadav）和桑杰·萨夫（Sanjay Sav）这两个邻居之间的纠纷进行民族志研究，我展示了国家正式法律体系和村庄非国家裁决机制的不足。