Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
Karamjeet Singh And Others – Appellants
Versus
Board Of Revenue U.P. Lucknow And Others – Respondents
Writ B No.24167 of 2017
Decided on : 19-03-2024
Land Allotment - U.P. Revenue Code 2006, Section 76, Section 77 - The court discussed the provisions of U.P. Revenue Code 2006, particularly Section 76 and Section 77, and their interpretation in the context of land allotment and rights. The court highlighted the entitlement of an asami to be recorded as bhumidhar if the land is not covered under Section 77, and emphasized the illegality of expunging the entry of the petitioners' father as bhumidhar with transferable right.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners' father was granted land allotment in 1973, and subsequent legal proceedings led to the expunging of the petitioners' entry as bhumidhar with transferable right. The petitioners challenged the orders before the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the expunging of the petitioners' entry as bhumidhar with transferable right was illegal and ordered the authorities to record the petitioners as bhumidhar with transferable right within six weeks.
Issues: The main issue was the legality of expunging the petitioners' entry as bhumidhar with transferable right based on the provisions of U.P. Revenue Code 2006.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of Section 76 (dd) and Section 77 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 to establish the entitlement of the petitioners to be recorded as bhumidhar with transferable right.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside. The authorities were directed to record the petitioners as bhumidhar with transferable right within six weeks.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and Mr. Pradeep Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 4/Gaon Sabha.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners' father was employed in the Indian Army and after retirement from the Armed Forces, he was inclined to settle at Mauza Roshannagar, Pargana Arhaura, Tehsil Chunar, District Mirzapur. Petitioners' father filed an application dated 24.03.1973 before the District Magistrate, Mirzapur, for allotting a peace of land to him so that he may cultivate, reside and earn his livelihood. On the application of petitioners' father proceeding was started and a land was allotted in favour of petitioners' father on 22.10.1973. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate granted his approval in respect to the aforementioned allotment made in favour of the petitioners' father giving him Sirdari right in respect to plot Nos. 84, 102, 104, 1, 64/1, 103, 104/183. Naiyab Tehsildar, vide order dated 20.08.1975, ordered to record the name of petitioners' father as Sirdar in respect to plot Nos. 84, 102, 104, 1, 64/1, 103, 104/183. In pursuance of the aforementioned allotment made in favour of the petitioners' father construction was made by him. After expiry of ten years, a proceeding was initiated in respect to the the aforementioned Sirdari right of petitioners and Tehsildar, vide order dated 07.12.1989, recommended to record the aforementioned plot as Asami class-3 after expiring the entry of bhumidhar with nontransferable right. The aforementioned report dated 07.12.1989 was accepted by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, vide order dated 26.12.1989. Against the order dated 26.12.1989, a revision was filed by petitioners' father before the Commissioner, which was dismissed by Additional Commissioner, vide order dated 08.05.1997. Petitioners' father challenged the order dated 08.05.1997, through revision before the Board of Revenue, but Board of Revenue has also dismissed the revision vide order dated 01.03.2017. Hence, this writ petitioner challenging the order dated 26.12.1989 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, order dated 08.05.1997 passed by Additional Commissioner and order dated 01.03.2017 passed by Board of Revenue.
3. This Court, vide order dated 26.05.2017, entertained the matter and granted interim protection in favour of petitioners. In pursuance of the order dated 26.05.2017, counter affidavit has been filed by State and petitioners has filed his rejoinder affidavit also.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners' father was granted lease in the year 1973 being ex-army man as such, the entry of the petitioner cannot be expunged in arbitrary manner without cancelling the lease executed in favour of the petitioners' father in accordance with law. He further submitted that on the basis of lease executed in favour of petitioners' father, the entry was made in the revenue record as Sirdar and later on, due to operation of law petitioners' father became bhumidhar, with non-transferable right. He further placed a copy of Khatauni, which is annexed as Annexure No. 6 to the instant petition, in which petitioners' father was recorded as bhumidhar with nontransferable right in respect to plot in question. He further submitted that due to further operation of law, the petitioners' father is to be recorded as bhumidhar with transferable right, but under the impugned order, the petitioners entry has been expunged on misconceived ground that petitioners were asami of the plot in question as such, no right will accrue to petitioners after expiry of five years. He further submitted that in view of provisions contained under Section 76 (dd) of U.P. Revenue Code 2006, every person, who was even an asami in possession of land not covered by Section 77 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 shall be given bhumidhari right. He further submitted that the land in dispute is not covere
The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of an asami to be recorded as bhumidhar with transferable right if the land is not covered under Section 77 of the U.P. Revenue ....
An Aasami lease under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is limited to a maximum of five years, and upon expiration, the rights do not transfer to heirs unless specifically provided by law. The court emphasized....
Aasami leases under U.P. law are limited to five years and cannot be inherited post-expiration, thus the petitioner had no rights over the land after the lease expired.
The court affirmed that Bhumiswami rights cannot be transferred without proper permissions as mandated by the Land Revenue Code, and the petitioners failed to establish valid occupancy rights.
Proper issue framing and evidence assessment are essential in land rights claims; failure to do so necessitates remand for lawful adjudication.
The judgment established that the issuance and extension of Patta, as well as the fulfillment of conditions for land ownership, are crucial in determining the rights of the petitioner.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
