Covering Law & Justice.

Allahabad High Court Strikes Down Restrictive Condition in Land Use Conversion Order

Lucknow: The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, in a recent judgment, has set aside a condition imposed by a Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) during the conversion of agricultural land use under Section 80 of the U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006. The condition had stated that the declaration of non-agricultural use would not be effective for compensation determination or transfer.

The ruling, delivered by Hon'ble Justice SaurabhLavania in Kanti Devi vs. State Of Up Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko. And Others , found that the Additional Commissioner had failed to properly consider the legal provisions governing land use conversion and the scope of the SDM's powers.

Case Background

The petitioner, Kanti Devi , had applied to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bahraich, for the conversion of a portion of her agricultural land (0.266 hectares out of 0.532 hectares) to non-agricultural use under Section 80 of the U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006. The SDM granted the declaration via an order dated 23.07.2024, classifying the specified land as non-agricultural. However, the order included a controversial condition in its operative portion: "This order shall not be effective for any kind of compensation amount determination/transfer. If the order is obtained by concealing facts, it will automatically be void."

Aggrieved by this condition, Kanti Devi filed a revision petition before the Additional Commissioner, Devi Patan Division Gonda, under Section 210 of the Code. She argued for the removal of the restrictive condition. The State counsel defended the SDM's order, asserting it was legally sound. The Additional Commissioner, in an order dated 05.03.2025, dismissed the revision, finding no jurisdictional error in the SDM's decision and upholding the entire order, including the contested condition.

Kanti Devi then approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging the Additional Commissioner's order specifically to the extent it upheld the aforementioned condition imposed by the SDM.

High Court's Observation and Ruling

Justice Lavania reviewed the relevant provisions of Section 80 of the U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006, and the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, which detail the procedure and conditions for declaring agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes (industrial, commercial, or residential).

The Court noted that the Additional Commissioner had dismissed the revision petition in a "mechanic manner" without proper application of mind and without considering the specific statutory provisions relevant to the issue. The judgment emphasized that the permission for land use conversion granted under Section 80 is subject to conditions outlined within the statutory provisions themselves, particularly Section 80(4), (7), and (8) and can only be cancelled under Section 82 of the Code.

By upholding the SDM's condition which restricted the effectiveness of the declaration for compensation or transfer purposes, the Additional Commissioner failed to discharge his statutory obligation to examine whether such a condition was permissible or aligned with the scheme of Section 80.

Consequently, the High Court found that the Additional Commissioner's order dated 05.03.2025 was legally flawed to the extent it affirmed the restrictive condition imposed by the SDM.

The Court stated: "This Court finds that the opposite party no.2 passed the order in utter mechanic manner as also without application of mind and without taking note of the specific provisions, quoted above, related to the issue involved before it."

And further: "The application preferred under Section 80 of the Code can be allowed or rejected after taking note of the conditions indicated in the statutory provisions... and the permission so granted can be cancelled only in terms of Section 82 of the Code and all these aspects ought to have been taken note of by the opposite party no.2 who failed to take note of the same and accordingly, this Court finds that the opposite party no.2 failed to discharge the statutory obligation."

Decision

The High Court allowed the petition and set aside/quashed the order dated 05.03.2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Devi Patan Division Gonda, to the extent that it upheld the contested condition in the SDM's order dated 23.07.2024. This effectively directs the revenue authorities to reconsider or remove the condition restricting the use of the non-agricultural declaration for compensation or transfer. The Court did not impose any costs.

The judgment highlights the importance of revenue authorities adhering strictly to the provisions and scheme of the U.P. Land Revenue Code when dealing with land use conversions and not imposing conditions that are not contemplated by the statute.

Case Details:

* Case Number: MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1667 of 2025

* Petitioner: Kanti Devi

* Respondent: State Of Up Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko. And Others

* Bench: Hon'ble SaurabhLavania , J.

* Date of Judgment: 27.03.2025