The court confirmed that any change in land categorization without proper jurisdiction undermines statutory provisions, rendering grants of land rights void ab initio.

JUDGMENT :

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The lis at hand concerns the validity of the change in categorisation of certain land situated in District Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh, the subsequent grant of pattas in favour of the appellant and the consequential ripple of events that ensued.

3. The backdrop of the present dispute is that prior to 31.10.1992, the subject land in dispute was recorded in Category-6 in the khatauni in terms of paragraph A-124 of the U.P Land Records Manual¹ [Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Manual’] which classifies the lands within a village. Category-6 inter alia denotes barren or uncultivated land including the lands covered with water, sites, roads, buildings and other non-agricultural uses. The area in which the subject land is situated is governed by the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.² [Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Abolition Act’]

4. Category-5 under the Manual denotes cultivable land (Krishi Yogya Bhumi) with sub-categories such as new fallow (Navin Parti/Parti Jadid), old fallow (Purani Parti/Parti Kadim), among other categories.

5. On 05.04.1992, the Lekhpal submitted a report stating that the Land Management Committee (Gaon Sabha) had resolved to change the category of the subject land from Category-6 to Category-5. Similar reports recommending the change were submitted by the Revenue Inspector on 12.04.1992 and the Naib Tehsildar on 16.04.1992. Based on these reports, the Tehsildar recommended to the Sub-Divisional Officer on 31.10.1992 that the land be reclassified as Category-5 and the Sub-Divisional Officer approved the said recommendation, effecting the change, leading to grant of pattas to the appellant and certain other individuals. Their names were also recorded in the relevant khatauni on basis of such pattas.

6. Subsequently, the village in which the subject land is situated was brought under consolidation operations through a notification issued under Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 2004. During the consolidation proceedings, the land settled in favour of the appellant by the lease dated 31.10.1992 was assigned a valuation, and the corresponding chaks were carved out under Section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The appellant’s name continued to be recorded in the proceedings under Section 23, and possession of the chaks was delivered on 01.07.2013. The appellant claims to have remained in continuous possession of the land since the grant of pattas and thereafter of the chaks allotted during consolidation.

7. After the grant of pattas, certain individuals, including one Shiv Karan, initiated proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the Abolition Act, before the Collector, Hardoi, seeking cancellation of pattas issued to 68 persons, including the appellant. The Additional Collector, Hardoi, rejected these proceedings by an order dated 19.08.1994, holding that there was no prima facie evidence establishing execution of the pattas. A revision petition against the order dated 19.08.1994 was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, on 04.08.1999.

8. Subsequently, during consolidation proceedings, the Consolidator submitted a report dated 08.02.2016 to the Ass