When the nature of land (agricultural vs. non-agricultural) is disputed in a partition suit under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, the court must follow the procedure under Section 331-A and Sections 143/144 to determine the land's status rather than relying solely on the absence of a declaration.

1. Heard Sri Anupam Kulshrestha, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Umang Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3, 28 & 29. Sri Shyam Mani Shukla has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 27.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the orders passed by the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3, dated 20.11.2018; 06.11.2017 & 27.08.2013, respectively, arising out of proceedings under Section 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, for division of holding; and the order dated 27.08.2025, passed by the respondent no. 1, rejecting the review application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 20.11.2018.

3. The facts of the case are that a suit for division of holding was filed by the respondent nos. 4 & 5 alongwith their mother Asha Rani, who is no more. The said suit was initially dismissed as not maintainable on the ground that it is covered by construction over which no agriculture is being carried out. The matter travelled upto this Court in Writ - B No. 50889 of 2011.

4. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed setting aside the orders passed by the Board of Revenue, First Appellate Court and the Trial Court. The matter was relegated back to the Trial Court, directing to frame an issue regarding maintainability of the suit and decide the same in light of the observations made in the said judgment.

5. Pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 29.09.2011, the respondent no. 3 by its order dated 27.08.2013, held the suit to be maintainable under Section 176 of the Act of 1950, holding that as there is no declaration under Section 143 of the Act, therefore, the land continues to be agricultural and proceeded to determine the shares of the parties to the suit. The first appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly, by its order dated 06.11.2017.

6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed second appeal before the Board of Revenue, the respondent no. 1, which was dismissed by the order dated 20.11.2018. The petitioner filed a review application in the second appeal, which has been rejected by the order of the respondent no. 1, dated 27.08.2025.

7. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that all the three authorities have decided the issue regarding maintainability of the suit by recording a sole finding that there was no declaration under Section 143 of the Act of 1950, therefore, suit was maintainable. None of the authorities have considered the provisions of Section 331-A , which provides that if any issue regarding maintainability of the suit is raised on the ground of nature of the land sought to be partitioned, the Assistant Collector, Incharge of the Sub Division, has first to proceed to decide the question in accordance with the provisions of Section 143 and 144 of the Act. In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel has relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandrika Singh and others Vs. Raja Vishwanath Pratap Singh and another , (1992) 3 SCC 90. Paragraph 15 of the said judgment is reproduced here under:-

"15. We are unable to agree with the said sub mission of Shri Yogeshwar Prasad. In our opinion, the question as to whether a particular land is "land" under section 2(14) of which the provisions of the Act are applicable would require determination of the question whether the land is held or occupied for purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry and that is a matter which has