The court upheld the rejection of the petitioners' application for land declaration due to lack of prior permission, emphasizing the importance of notification dates and authority discretion under the U.P. Revenue Code.

JUDGMENT :

JASPREET SINGH, J.

1. Heard Shri H.N. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Hemant Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Abhineet Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4.

2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioners assail the order dated 06.12.2023 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tahsil Jalalpur, District Ambedkar Nagar whereby an application preferred by the petitioners under Section 80 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 has been rejected, as not maintainable. The said order was further challenged in a revision before the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Ayodhaya, which also met the same fate by order dated 07.06.2024.

3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that he had moved his application seeking declaration that the land in question be declared as non-agricultural in terms of Section 80 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 on 21.10.2023. It has further been submitted that the order rejecting the application by the Sub Divisional Magistrate is primarily on the ground that in light of Section 80 (8) of the Code of 2006, the application has been held to be not maintainable as prior permission from the authority (in the instant case respondent no. 4) has not been obtained.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that the notification made by the respondent no. 4 is dated 01.12.2023 which is prior to the date of application moved by the petitioners, hence the order rejecting the application as not maintainable, is per se bad in law. It is also urged that the revisional court has also not taken note of the aforesaid and rejecting the application on the ground has caused prejudice to the petitioners. In such circumstances, the impugned orders are bad in the eyes of law and liable to be set aside.

5. Shri Jaiswal learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4 has submitted that the basic premise upon which the petitioners have filed the petition and assailing the impugned order does not flow from the record; inasmuch as the notification is not dated 01.12.2023 as alleged by the petitioners rather it is dated 17.10.2023 whereas the application preferred by the petitioners under Section 80 (1) of the Code of 2006 is dated 21.10.2023 i.e. clearly subsequent to the date of the notification.

6. It has further been submitted that this being so the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned after taking note has held that the application is not maintainable, is not incorrect and as such no error is present in the order impugned and the petition deserves to be rejected.

7. Shri Tiwari refuting the aforesaid submissions has stated that there is a difference in the submissions made by the respective parties and it is sought to be argued that in case if it is the case of the Sub Divisional Magistrate that prior permission was required even then by drawing the attention of the Court to annexure no. 11. It has been stated that the respondent no. 4 had considered the request of the petitioners and had remitted the matter to the Sub Divisional Magistrate to proceed in terms of Section 80 of the Code of 2006 and after pass appropriate orders and the authority i.e. the respondent no. 4 be informed accordingly.

8. It is the submissions of the counsel for the petitioners that this letter in itself amounts to permission granted by the respondent no. 4 and in this view at least the application moved by the petitioners could not be rejected as not maintainable. It is urged that they may be various other reasons which may prevail in the mind of the authority whether to allow or reject the application but in the aforesaid circumstances the application of the petitioners could not have been rejected on the ground of maintainability and that is an error apparent on the face of the record.

9. The Court has heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

10. It is apparently not disputed that the notification has