Sub-Divisional Officer Not Empowered To Grant Declaration Of Bhumidhar Rights On Administrative Side/ Without Adjudication: Allahabad HC

Update: 2025-05-14 08:00 GMT
Click the Play button to listen to article
story

The Allahabad High Court has held that under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the Sub-Divisional Officer has not been empowered to grant a declaration of bhumidhar rights on administraive side.While dealing with a case where petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for grant of declaration of absolute bhumidhar rights and decision on representation filed before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Justice...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

The Allahabad High Court has held that under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the Sub-Divisional Officer has not been empowered to grant a declaration of bhumidhar rights on administraive side.

While dealing with a case where petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for grant of declaration of absolute bhumidhar rights and decision on representation filed before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Justice Kshitij Shailendra held,

“A careful reading of the aforesaid provisions would reveal that all the three provisions; Sections 131A, 131B of Act, 1950 and 76 of Code, 2006 speak of conferment of status upon the concerned tenure holder as Bhumidhar with transferable rights, however, the provisions do not provide for a forum for making conferment or such declaration. Certainly, the Sub-Divisional Officer or any other officer has not been held to be empowered, on administrative side, to grant such a declaration in favour of concerned tenure holder under the aforesaid provisions.”

Counsel for petitioner argued that since the before the commencement of the UP Revenue Code, the petitioner had been Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights for a period of more than 5 years, he was entitled to the grant of status as Bhumidhar with transferable rights by the Sub-Divisional Officer. Reliance was placed on Section 131A and 131B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 as well as Section 76 of the U.P. Revenue Code.

Section 131A of the UPZALR Act provides the situation in which a person becomes a Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights of the land. Section 131B provides that every person who was a bhumidhar with non-transferable rights immediately before the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1995 for a period of ten years or more, shall become a bhumidhar with transferable rights on such commencement.

Section 131B(2) provides that bhumidhar with non-transferable rights on the commencement of the act or a person who becomes a bhumidhar with non-transferable rights after such commencement, shall become bhumidhar with transferable rights on the expiry of period of ten years from his becoming a bhumidhar with non- transferable rights.

Section 76(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code provides that

Every person who was a Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights immediately before the commencement of this Code and had been such Bhumidhar for a period of [five years] or more, shall become Bhumidhar with transferable rights on such commencement.

The Court held that as per Section 76(2) of the Code, a bhumidhar with non-transferable rights for 5 years before the commencement of the Code shall be a bhumidhar with transferable rights. It held that there was no mention of the Sub-Divisional Officer in the 3 provisions which conferred the rights.

Justice Shailendra held that the declaratory suit under Section 144 of the Code was for contesting the title as bhumidhar and the same could not be done by a declaration on the administrative side.

In view of the above, without examining the merits of the claim of the petitioner as Bhumidhar with transferable rights, it is held that Sub Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction to grant such a declaration on administrative side, however, he is certainly competent to grant such a declaration in appropriate statutory proceedings under Section 144 of the Code, 2006.”

Holding that a writ of mandamus could not be issued to a authority who did not have the power to adjudicate upon the representation, the Court dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Jayraj Singh v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [WRIT - C No. - 41221 of 2024]

Counsel for Petitioner :- Pulak Ganguly, H.C. Dwivedi

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sunil Kumar Singh

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Full View
Tags:    

Similar News