Three-Year Limitation Period for Challenging Allotment Under Section 66(2) of U.P. Revenue Code is Mandatory: Allahabad High Court - 2026-01-09

Sleeping on Rights: High Court Dismisses 32-Year-Old Challenge to Lease Allotment

In a significant ruling for land revenue administration, the Allahabad High Court has reinforced the sanctity of limitation periods when challenging administrative land allotments. Justice Alok Mathur, presiding over the Lucknow Bench, dismissed a petition by one Shivdhari, who sought to cancel a housing lease granted in 1991, 32 years after its inception.

A Three-Decade-Old Dispute

The controversy originated from a housing lease granted to the father of the private respondent in 1991. The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 66 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, arguing that the allottee had failed to construct a house within three years of the grant, as mandated by Rule 64 .

However, the Collector of Sultanpur rejected the complaint, citing Section 66(2) of the Code, which imposes a strict three-year limitation period for private individuals to challenge an allotment. This decision was subsequently upheld by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), leading to the current challenge in the High Court.

The Core Legal Tug-of-War

The petitioner argued that Rule 64 is mandatory and that a breach of the construction condition creates an inherent right to cancellation, implying that limitation periods might be secondary to the obligation to build.

Conversely, the State’s counsel emphasized that the U.P. Revenue Code is a beneficial piece of legislation aimed at providing housing to the poor—specifically agricultural laborers and artisans. They argued that the three-year limit in Section 66(2) acts as a necessary filter to prevent vexatious litigation, noting that if the intention was for the time limit to be open-ended, the law wouldn't have specified a cutoff for "aggrieved persons."

Behind the Bench: Why the Petition Failed

The Court clarified a crucial distinction between the powers vested in the Collector and those in a private complainant. While the Collector enjoys the power to initiate an inquiry suo motu (on his own motion) at any given time, private parties are strictly governed by the three-year limitation.

According to Justice Mathur, characterizing the construction requirement as an absolute trigger for cancellation without regard for time would disrupt the stability essential to the rural land system. The Court further noted that even the law acknowledges leniency for vulnerable groups, as evidenced by specific exceptions for SC/ST allottees, which suggests that the time limit for construction is not an inflexible, universal mandate for all categories.

Key Observations

The judgment offers clear guidance on the interpretation of the Revenue Code:

• The Limitation Shield: "No application under sub-section (1) shall be entertained, meaning thereby that the Collector on his own motion can, at any time, initiate proceedings... but any person, who is aggrieved by the allotment, is bound to move such an application within three years."
• Purpose of the Code: "The issue pertaining to allotment of patta sites is a beneficial piece of legislation and should be interpreted in a liberal manner so as to fulfill the objects sought to be achieved rather than to curtail rights of the person for whom the allotment has been made."
• Discretion vs. Mandate: "Merely because a person has not raised construction within three years can[not] automatically lead to cancellation of his allotment."

Final Verdict: Providing Certainty in Property Rights

The High Court’s refusal to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities provides much-needed legal certainty for allottees. By dismissing the petition, the Court has signaled that property titles cannot be challenged on the basis of stale claims spanning decades. For future cases, this reaffirms that while the state retains the power to rectify irregular allotments, the public is expected to exercise their grievances within the timeframes prescribed by the legislature.