# Abbas Ansari v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 578
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-16
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 7005 of 2023
- **Bench:** Rajan Roy, Om Prakash Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/abbas-ansari-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53412
- **Pages:** 31

## Headnote

Civil Law - U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 -
Applicability - Scope - The Act, 1939 applied to
Agra and Oudh regions in respect of agricultural
tenancies and connected matters - Act, 1939
stood repealed only in areas where Zamindari
was abolished under the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (rural
areas) and the U.P. Urban Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act, 1956 (urban areas) - In
areas. Rural or urban, where Zamindari was not
abolished (Non-Z.A. lands), the Act, 1939
continues to apply - Nothing in the Act, 1939
excludes its operation merely because the land
falls within a Municipality, Town Area or
Cantonment, and if such land answers to the
definitions of "land" [S. 3(10)], "holding" [S.
3(7)] or involves "improvements" [S. 3(8)], the
Act, 1939 governs it - Khataunis and Khewats
of Non-Z.A. lands are prepared under the U.P.
Land Revenue Act, 1901 and Land Records
Manual,
but
tenancy/tenure
rights
are
determined under the Act, 1939 - In present
case, Plot No. 93, Jiamau, Lucknow, though
within municipal limits since 1912, had for
decades been treated
as Non-Z.A. land,
khataunis prepared from 1359 Fasli onwards,
entries never challenged. In absence of requisite
pleadings and proof, Court in writ jurisdiction
cannot record finding that land in question
ceased to be "land" or "holding" under Act,
1939 merely because it was part of municipal
limits in relevant Faslis. (Para 25 - 53)

B. U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 - U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 - Section 230 -
Repeal - Section 230 of the Code, 2006 repeals
the enactments specified in the First Schedule
thereof which includes ZA Act, 1950, the Urban
ZA Act, 1956 and the Act, 1901 - Saving under
Section 230(2)©, repeal of such enactments
shall not affect any other enactment in which
such enactment has been applied incorporated
or referred to. Held : Act, 1901 having been
applied and referred to in Act, 1939, repeal of
Act, 1901 by Section 230 of Code, 2006 does
not affect its applicability in view of saving
5 All. Abbas Ansari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
579
under Section 230(2)© - Registers under Act,
1939 to be maintained under Section 32 of the
Act, 1901 and correction therein to be made
under the Act, 1901 as there is no such
provision in Act, 1939 - Code, 2006 does not
repeal Act, 1939 in its application to Non-Z.A.
land, hence Act, 1939 continues to apply to
Non-Z.A. land the Act 1901 also continues to
apply in the context of application of the said
Act, 1939 to Non-Z.A. land - By Section 2 of the
Code, 2006 except Chapters VIII and IX, rest of
the provisions apply to the entire State including
Non-Z.A. lands - Section 38 of the Code, 2006
dealing with corrections of errors or omission in
records will apply to Non-Z.A. areas also.
Exercise for correction of records in respect of
old record

## Text

_Characters 0–39,903 of 107,358. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39903 for what follows._

578 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
judgments of this High Court have held that
even though the statute/rule do not provide
for a specific opportunity of hearing to be
granted, when there are civil consequences
affecting a party, the right approach is to
grant an opportunity of hearing to him."

6. In light of the same, the
impugned order dated August 12, 2024 is
quashed and set aside with a direction upon
the authorities to provide the documents
they are relying upon, grant an opportunity
of hearing to the petitioner, and thereafter,
pass a reasoned order within a period of
eight weeks from date.

7. We make it clear that once the
relied upon documents are provided to the
petitioner,
he
would
not
seek
any
adjournment on the date of personal
hearing.

8. With the above directions, the
writ petition is disposed of.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 578
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

Writ C No. 7005 of 2023
With other connected cases

Abbas Ansari ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Shobhit Mohan Shukla, Abhishek Khare,
Manoj Kumar Chaurasiya, Mudit Agarwal,
Mohd. Aslam Khan, Nitesh Kumar Mishra,
Vatsala Singh, Vivek Singh
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., A.S.G.I., Dilip Kumar Pandey,
Gaurav Mehrotra, Harsh Vardhan Mehrotra,
Maria Fatima, Namit Sharma, Santosh
Kumar Tripathi, Shailendra Singh Chauhan

Civil Law - U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 -
Applicability - Scope - The Act, 1939 applied to
Agra and Oudh regions in respect of agricultural
tenancies and connected matters - Act, 1939
stood repealed only in areas where Zamindari
was abolished under the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (rural
areas) and the U.P. Urban Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act, 1956 (urban areas) - In
areas. Rural or urban, where Zamindari was not
abolished (Non-Z.A. lands), the Act, 1939
continues to apply - Nothing in the Act, 1939
excludes its operation merely because the land
falls within a Municipality, Town Area or
Cantonment, and if such land answers to the
definitions of "land" [S. 3(10)], "holding" [S.
3(7)] or involves "improvements" [S. 3(8)], the
Act, 1939 governs it - Khataunis and Khewats
of Non-Z.A. lands are prepared under the U.P.
Land Revenue Act, 1901 and Land Records
Manual,
but
tenancy/tenure
rights
are
determined under the Act, 1939 - In present
case, Plot No. 93, Jiamau, Lucknow, though
within municipal limits since 1912, had for
decades been treated
as Non-Z.A. land,
khataunis prepared from 1359 Fasli onwards,
entries never challenged. In absence of requisite
pleadings and proof, Court in writ jurisdiction
cannot record finding that land in question
ceased to be "land" or "holding" under Act,
1939 merely because it was part of municipal
limits in relevant Faslis. (Para 25 - 53)

B. U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 - U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 - Section 230 -
Repeal - Section 230 of the Code, 2006 repeals
the enactments specified in the First Schedule
thereof which includes ZA Act, 1950, the Urban
ZA Act, 1956 and the Act, 1901 - Saving under
Section 230(2)©, repeal of such enactments
shall not affect any other enactment in which
such enactment has been applied incorporated
or referred to. Held : Act, 1901 having been
applied and referred to in Act, 1939, repeal of
Act, 1901 by Section 230 of Code, 2006 does
not affect its applicability in view of saving
5 All. Abbas Ansari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
579
under Section 230(2)© - Registers under Act,
1939 to be maintained under Section 32 of the
Act, 1901 and correction therein to be made
under the Act, 1901 as there is no such
provision in Act, 1939 - Code, 2006 does not
repeal Act, 1939 in its application to Non-Z.A.
land, hence Act, 1939 continues to apply to
Non-Z.A. land the Act 1901 also continues to
apply in the context of application of the said
Act, 1939 to Non-Z.A. land - By Section 2 of the
Code, 2006 except Chapters VIII and IX, rest of
the provisions apply to the entire State including
Non-Z.A. lands - Section 38 of the Code, 2006
dealing with corrections of errors or omission in
records will apply to Non-Z.A. areas also.
Exercise for correction of records in respect of
old records and the existing records could still
be undertaken under Section 38 of the Code,
2006 - Merely because orders dated 14.08.2020
and 22.03.2021 refer to the Act, 1901 would not
invalidate them (Para 54 -58)

C. U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 - Sections
33(2)(b), 38, 39 & 40-A - U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 - Sections 38 & 39 - Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 35 - Scope of
proceedings for correction of land records -
Mutation entries - Whether confer title, right to
possession, or extinguish the same - Held,
revenue entries by themselves do not decide
title, nor confer or deprive any person of title in
respect of land - Corrections under S. 33(2)(b)
of the Act, 1901 or S. 38 of the Code, 2006 not
based on succession or transfer and by express
provisos do not empower authority to decide
dispute involving title - Mutation of land in
revenue records does not create or extinguish
title nor has presumptive value on title -
Revenue records not documents of title - Even if
entries in Record of Rights carry evidentiary
value, same would not by itself confer title and
presumption of correctness is rebuttable -
Mutation entry in revenue records is only for
fiscal purpose (Para 59 - 62)

D. U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 - Section
39(2) - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 - Section
38 - Administration of Evacuee Property Act,
1954 - Section12 - Suo motu power of
correction of land records - Maintainability of
action on application by Advocate for Gaon Sabha
- Held, sub-S. (2) of S. 39 of the Act, 1901 and S.
38 of the Code, 2006 make it clear that such
power of correction can be exercised suo motu on
requisite information coming to knowledge of
Revenue Authority - Information received by SubDivisional Magistrate was sufficient basis -
Absence of Gaon Sabha Jiamau not relevant, could
be corrected, including old records, or were
required to be corrected, especially as, old villages
exist within municipal limits even if there is no
Gaon Sabha (Para 63)

E. U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 - Sections3
3(2)(a), (b), 33(3), 39 & 227(5a) - U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 - Sections 38(2), (3) -
Mutation/Entries in khatauni - Requirement of
order of competent authority - Held : No change
can be recorded in the khatauni without an order
of the Collector or of the Tehsildar or the
Kanoongo - Even under Code, 2006 no mutation
or change can be recorded in the khatauni without
order of competent authority - If there is no order
of competent authority to record a name in the
khatauni, any such entry would be without legal
basis. (Para 64)

F. U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 - Sections
33 & 39 - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 -
Sections 38 & 39 - Long standing entries in
Record of Rights - Correction thereof - Held :
Even long standing entries, if fraudulent, forged,
without any basis or without order of competent
revenue authority, without following procedure
prescribed can be corrected - Entries without valid
legal basis, made without following prescribed
procedure
or
without
order
of
competent
authority, are liable to be corrected irrespective of
period of continuance in revenue records - Such
errors can also be corrected suo motu if authority
comes to knowledge of same - However, such
correction
cannot
be
made
without
notice/opportunity of hearing to recorded person
whose name is proposed to be struck off - Only
such entries legally and correctly recorded after
following prescribed procedure under order of
competent authority can be termed genuine and
carry rebuttable presumption of correctness -
Entry in revenue record must have a legal basis
and no title could be claimed on basis of a wrong
entry, howsoever long standing - (Para 65 - 69)

G. U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 - Sections
33 & 39 - U.P. Urban Planning and
Development Act, 1973 - Section 15(9) -
Maintainability of writ petition - Mutation
580 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
orders/correction
of
revenue
records
-
Availability
of
alternative
remedy
of
appeal/revision/recall
-
Held,
Writ
Court
ordinarily does not entertain a writ petition
challenging a mutation order or an order
correcting the revenue records and entries
therein except in exceptional circumstances,
that too, at the behest of persons who were or
are already recorded in the revenue records.
(Para 70)

H. U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 -
Sections 33, 34 & 39 - U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 - Sections 37 & 38 -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226
- Correction of entries in revenue records -
Orders dated 14.08.2020 and 22.03.2021 -
Effect - Scope of interference under Art. 226
- Held, entries in favour of Krishna Kumar
Kalra and others in khatauni of 1369 and
1380 Fasli were without basis and rightly
struck off by Sub-Divisional Magistrate -
Restoration of entry of 1362 Fasli showing
land as evacuee property in possession of
Custodian was only a correction of records
and did not amount to adjudicating title or
divesting any person of rights - Such orders
under Ss. 33/39 of Act, 1901 or S. 38 of
Code, 2006 cannot be treated as conferring or
extinguishing title; they are amenable to
recall, appeal or revision - Petitioners if
having valid sale certificates or title deeds are
at liberty to assert their rights in appropriate
proceedings, but such complicated questions
of title and veracity of documents cannot be
decided in writ jurisdiction - Mere striking off
of names does not affect valid title or
possession, if any, of petitioners - Denial of
hearing under S. 34(5) to persons who had
not reported succession/transfer held justified
-
Allegations
of
fraud/forgery
of
sale
certificates cannot be adjudicated in writ
proceedings - No interference warranted
under
Art.
226, but liberty granted
to
petitioners to seek recall/appeal/revision or
initiate regular proceedings - Orders impugned
not to be treated as deciding title, right of
possession or evacuee nature of property. (Para
71 - 108)

I. Urban Planning and Development Act,
1973- Section 15(9) - U.P. Land Revenue
Act, 1901 - Sections 33 & 39 - U.P.
Revenue
Code,
2006
-
corresponding
provisions - Constitution of India, Art. 226 -
Show Cause Notices
- Validity
-
Held,
jurisdictional prerequisites for exercise of power
under S. 15(9) are that permission was obtained
by material misrepresentation or fraudulent
statement
or
information
-
Fraud
and
misrepresentation are terms having definite
legal connotation and not to be used casually
- In present case, impugned notices dated
18.11.2020 issued by Lucknow Development
Authority were based wholly on report dated
16.09.2020 of Sub Divisional Magistrate and
order dated 14.08.2020 passed under Ss.
33/39 of Act, 1901 - Sub Divisional Magistrate
has no power to decide title or to declare land
as evacuee property, nor was there any
finding that sale deeds and sale certificates
relied upon by petitioners were forged or
fabricated - Unless and until veracity of sale
certificates is inquired into and proved to be
forged or illegal, no action under S. 15(9)
could be initiated - Notices being based on
misconception of law and fact do not satisfy
jurisdictional prerequisites and are liable to be
quashed - Accordingly, show cause notices
dated 18.11.2020 quashed - However, liberty
reserved to Authority to proceed afresh, if
cause so arises, in accordance with law. (Para
119 - 129)

Allowed. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J.)

1. All these writ petitions have been
clubbed and heard together.

2. In Writ C No. 661 of 2021
(Faraz Hussain vs. State of U.P. and
others), Writ C No. 684 of 2021 (Asma
Hussain vs. State of U.P. and others) and
Writ C No. 687 of 2021 (Nadeem-UrRehman and another vs. State of U.P. and
others), order dated 14.08.2020 passed by
the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Lucknow,
District Lucknow in exercise of his powers
under Section 33 read with Section 39 of
the
U.P.
Land
Revenue
Act,
1901
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1901')
5 All. Abbas Ansari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
581
by which he has corrected entries in the
'records of rights' (Khatauni) pertaining to
Gata No. 93 situated in Village Jiamau,
Tehsil Sadar, District Lucknow, is under
challenge. Apart from it, notices issued by
the Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development
Authority, under Section 15 (9) of the U.P.
Urban Planning and Development Act,
1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act,
1973') have also been challenged.

3. In Writ C No. 7005 of 2023
(Abbas Ansari vs. State of U.P. and
others), apart from the order dated
14.08.2020 referred above, an order dated
22.03.2021 has also been challenged
which reiterates the decision taken in the
order dated 14.08.2020. Apart from it, the
petitioner of this writ petition has prayed
for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the
opposite parties not to interfere in his
possession. Opposite party no. 6 in this
petition is his brother who is said to have
similar rights as the petitioners, in the
property in question.

Facts

4. Before proceeding further, we
need to discuss the factual background
leading to the impugned orders.

5. It is said that on 17.07.2020 the
Secretary,
Lucknow
Development
Authority wrote to the District Magistrate,
Lucknow about certain facts which came to
his knowledge regarding gata no. 93,
whereupon,
the
District
Magistrate,
Lucknow sought a report regarding owners
of the House No. 21/14A/1, 21/14B,
21/216A existing thereon.

 On
28.07.2020,
an
alleged
Advocate on the panel of Gaon Sabha filed
a complaint regarding fabricated entries in
respect of the aforesaid Gata, which,
according to him, was Evacuee Property.

On
28.07.2020,
the
Sub
Divisional Magistrate called for a report
from the Tehsildar and on that very day the
Tehsildar submitted a report before him
inter alia stating that the property was
recorded as Evacuee Property in 1362
Fasli, but, without any basis and without
any order of the competent authority it
came to be recorded in the name of Laxmi
Narayan in 1369 Fasli and likewise without
any basis or order of the competent
authority in the 1380 Fasli it came to be
recorded in the name of Krishna Kumar
Kalra, who, transferred the properties to
several persons, who ultimately came to be
recorded, therefore, the entries require a
correction, as, apparently, they were
without any basis and were 'Farzi'.

On 06.08.2020 the Sub Divisional
Magistrate directed registration of a case
based on the report of the Tehsildar and
also for issuance of notice to the concerned,
fixing 10.08.2020 as the next date in the
proceedings.
These
proceedings
were
apparently registered in exercise of his
powers under Section 33 read with Section
39 of the Act, 1901.

On 10.08.2020, an order was
passed for publication of notice in the
newspapers fixing the next date as
13.08.2020 and on 14.08.2020, orders were
reserved in the proceedings and on the
same day the impugned order dated
14.08.2020 was passed. This order was
passed after hearing the alleged counsel for
the Gaon Sabha, none else.

6. By means of the impugned order
dated 14.08.2020, the Sub Divisional
Magistrate, Lucknow, District Lucknow
has corrected the records pertaining to
Gata/Plot No. 93 (5 Bigha, 3 Biswa, 10
Biswansi) situated in Village Jiamau,
582 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Tehsil Sadar, District Lucknow on the
ground that the said Non-Z.A. land was an
Evacuee Property as is mentioned in the
Khatauni of 1362 Fasli (1955). This
property was mentioned at Sl No. RHZ-1/1
of register No. 10 pertaining to Evacuee
Properties which is maintained by the
Board of the Revenue, U.P., as an Evacuee
Property. Therefore, subsequent entries in
favour of Laxmi Narayan in 1369 Fasli,
Krishna Kumar Kalra in 1380 Fasli and 9
other persons to whom it was allegedly
transferred,
namely,
Ahsan
Ehtesam,
Aslam Ehtesam, Syed Ata Kareem, Krishna
Kumar Kalra, Smt. Naseema Kamal, Smt.
Malka Begum, Smt. Pasmin Som Siddiqui,
Smt. Wazida Begum and Hilal Ahmed,
without any basis/without any order of the
competent authority, were illegal and
'Farzi'.

7. Accordingly, apart from the
name of Krishna Kumar Kalra, the names
of all 9 (nine) persons who were recorded
in respect of the said plot/gata has also
been struck off and the entry of 1362 Fasli
(1955) has been restored wherein Mohd.
Wasim was recorded with the endorsement
that the property was in possession of the
Custodian Evacuee Property.

8. Now, the case of the petitioners
in this regard is that the aforesaid plot of
land, on which existed a bungalow bearing
No. 7, in Dalibagh, Lucknow, was owned
by Barrister Wasim who migrated to
Pakistan. By a notification under Section 7
of the Administration of Evacuee Property
Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred as the 'Act,
1950') dated 31.07.1950 the said property
was declared an 'Evacuee Property'. As a
consequence of the aforesaid declaration
under Section 7, the property vested in the
Custodian, that is why the endorsement in
the
Khatauni
of
1362
Fasli
(1955)
regarding possession of custodian Evacuee
properties.

9.
There
was
cross-migration
between India and Pakistan consequent to
partition which took place in 1947,
therefore, to rehabilitate displaced persons
another enactment, namely, the Displaced
Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation)
Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the
'Act, 1954') was promulgated to provide for
the
payment
of
compensation
and
rehabilitation grants to such persons and for
matters connected therewith.

10.
According
to
petitioners,
aforesaid Gata no. 93 was acquired by the
Central Government under Section 12 of
the Act, 1954 for the purpose connected
with relief and rehabilitation of displaced
persons
including
payment
of
compensation
to
such
persons
by
publishing a notification dated 26.11.1957
in this regard, which, as claimed, finds
mention in the sale-certificates and certain
judgments and decrees which are on record.

11.
According
to
them,
on
publication
of
such
notification
on
26.11.1957 under Section 12 (1) of the Act,
1954, the right, title and interest of any
Evacuee in the Evacuee Property stood
extinguished and the Evacuee Property
vested
absolutely
in
the
Central
Government free from all encumbrances. It
ceased to be an Evacuee Property, as has
been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
the case of Lieutenant Governor of Delhi
and others vs. Matwal Chand (Dead)
through Legal Representatives1.

12. It is also their case that the said
land became part of the compensation pool
referred under Section 14 of the Act, 1954.
After rehabilitation and compensation to
5 All. Abbas Ansari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
583
displaced persons, as the said plot of land
still remained unutilized, therefore, it was
put to auction and settled with persons such
as Krishna Kumar Kalra, Hilal Ahmed, Ata
Kareem, Raj Kumari Chopra, etc. though
they were not displaced persons and it was
permissible to do so under Section 20 of
the Act, 1954.

13. According to them, it is in these
circumstances that the aforesaid plot 93,
parts thereof, were auctioned and sold to
various persons and the sale-certificates
were issues to them.

Through these auction
purchasers, petitioners claim to have
acquired title and possession in respect of
parts of plot no. 93.

14. In this very context, we may
point out that the petitioner of Writ C No.
684 of 2021 (Asma Hussain) claims
through one Hilal Ahmed who had
purchased part of the said land in such an
auction sale, as referred above, held on
05.07.1973, which is also the date of
issuance of sale-certificate although it has
been
registered
subsequently
on
25.06.1979. The said petitioner claims to
have purchased 4900 square feet of land
which was settled in favour of Hilal
Ahmed. The sale-deed in favour of Asma
Hussain was executed and got registered by
Hilal Ahmed on 24.06.1983. She says that
thereafter
she
applied
for
permission/sanction of map under Section
15 of the Act, 1973 which was sanctioned
on 22.07.1996. She thereafter built a house
thereon and is residing in it. Hilal Ahmed is
a person whose name finds mention in the
order dated 14.08.2020 and in fact his name
has been struck off from the Non-Z.A.
khatauni and the earlier entry regarding the
property being an Evacuee Property has
been restored, as mentioned earlier. The
fact that Hilal Ahmed was recorded in the
Non-Z.A. khatauni is not in dispute but, we
have not been told as to when said Hilal
Ahmed came to be recorded in the NonZ.A. Khatauni for the first time and on
what basis and under which category. She
also claims to have been recorded in the
Record of Rights as Bhumidhar with
transferable
rights
and
has
annexed
photocopy of Khatauni of 1402 Fasli
(1996).

15. The petitioner of Writ C No.
661 of 2021 - Faraz Hussain claims
title/rights in the land/building in question
through one Raj Kumari Chopra in whose
favour aforesaid property was auctioned,
similarly,
on
06.09.1974.
The
salecertificate is dated 06.09.1976 and it was
registered on 16.11.1976. The said Raj
Kumari Chopra executed a sale-deed in
favour of Altaf Hussain father of Faraz
Hussain (petitioner) and Irfan Hussain
(uncle) on 09.06.1980 in respect of plot
10C (II) measuring 4000 square feet of
land. On 05.02.2004 Irfan Hussain is said
to have sold off 600 square feet of his share
of land to his brother Altaf Hussain i.e. the
father of the petitioner. Prior to it on
20.12.2003 it is said that a map was got
sanctioned for construction of building and
ultimately the father of the petitioner (Faraz
Hussain)
constructed
a
multi-storied
apartment on plot no. 10C and in one of the
flats the petitioner resides. Para 18 of his
writ petition also mentions about other flat
owners in the said apartment.

16. Now, Raj Kumari Chopra, the
original predecessor in interest of Faraz
Hussain was never recorded in the revenue
records. Her name does not find mention
even in the impugned order nor in the chart
contained in para 20 of the counter affidavit
584 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
filed in this writ petition which mentions
about 9 recorded persons in respect of the
aforesaid plot no. 93 and in sub-plots
carved therefrom, whose name has been
struck off. In this view of the matter, Faraz
Hussain's case is slightly different from
other cases as the order dated 14.08.2020
does not even mention the name of Raj
Kumari Chopra. It being so why he has
challenged the said order? Faraz Hussain
claims prejudice because of issuance of
notice dated 18.11.2020 for cancellation of
the map based on the order dated
14.08.2020, that is why he has challenged
the said order also and also, as, according
to him the said order affects/prejudices his
title to the land.

17. The petitioners of Writ C No.
687 of 2021 (Nadeem-Ur-Rehman and
Naushad Alam) claim through Ata Kareem
albeit not directly but through a line of
successors in interest of Ata Kareem. It is
said that on 05.07.1973, part of plot no. 93
was auctioned in favour of Ata Kareem.
The sale certificate in his favour is dated
05.07.1973 but it was registered on
25.06.1979. Ata Kareem died in April 1984
leaving behind two sons and two daughters,
namely, S.S. Ahmed Rizvi, Masood Ahmed
Rizvi (sons), Rehana Markada and Raees
Fatima (daughters). Raees Fatima gifted
her share to her nephew Irfan Ahmed. S.S.
Ahmed Rizvi and Irfan Ahmed executed a
sale-deed in favour of the petitioners with
respect to 4900 square feet of land. The
petitioners applied for sanction of map for
constructing a building on 29.06.2004
which was permitted and thereafter they
built a multi-storied building wherein the
petitioners also reside. The names of other
flat owners are mentioned in para 17 of
their writ petition. Ata Kareem is one of the
persons whose name finds mention in the
order dated 14.08.2020 and whose name
has been struck off from the khatauni, as
already mentioned. Here again we have not
been told of the year/Fasli in which Ata
Kareem first came to be recorded in the
Non-Z.A. Khatauni and its basis nor the
category under which he may have been
recorded initially.

18. As regards petitioner of Writ C
No. 7005 of 2003 - Abbas Ansari, he
claims through Krishna Kumar Kalra, in
whose
favour,
a
sale-certificate
was
allegedly issued on 30.12.1969 and was
registered on 07.02.1970, although, not
directly, but, through a long chain of his
successors in interest. The said salecertificate does not mention the area of land
purchased by Krishna Kumar Kalra though
it mentions the boundaries of the land
auctioned in his favour. As already
referred, Shri Kalra was recorded in NonZ.A. Khatauni in 1380 Fasli (1973) under
category 5 (ka) i.e. illegal occupant without
title. It is said that Krishna Kumar Kalra,
after purchasing three bighas of plot no.
93M (0.713 hectares) in the auction-sale
held under the Act, 1954, sold various
portions thereof to different persons and on
19.05.1995 about 11992.61 square feet was
sold
to
Shakeela
Begum
wife
of
Mohammad Ahmad. The said Shakeela
Begum executed a registered sale-deed in
respect of the aforesaid plot in favour of
one Dr. Shahid Hussain on 05.02.2001. Dr.
Shahid
Hussain
in
turn
executed
a
registered sale-deed on 09.03.2004 in
favour of Mohammad Shubhan Ullah
Ansari, the grandfather of petitioner and
opposite party no. 6. Mohammad Shubhan
Ullan Ansari in turn made an oral gift
(Hiba) in favour of his wife Rabia Begum.
It is said that Rabia Begum executed a
registered will in favour of the petitioner
and opposite party no. 6 bequeathing the
said property to her grandsons, aforesaid.
5 All. Abbas Ansari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
585
Neither Shakeela Begum nor any other
successor in interest, including Mohammad
Shubhanullah Ansari and Rabia Begum,
were recorded in the revenue records.

19. The building/flat existing on the
land purchased by the predecessor in
interest of Abbas Ansari which allegedly
belonged to Rabia Begum had already been
demolished on 27.08.2020 in pursuance to
an order dated 11.08.2020 passed by the
Lucknow Development Authority, prior to
filing of his writ petition, but, no relief has
been sought regarding this action in his
petition, though, a cursory reference has
been made in para 42 of the petition
regarding demolition of the building. We
have
already
passed
orders
dated
15/16.01.2025 and 04.02.2025 in this
regard.

20. After passing of the order dated
14.08.2020, the Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Lucknow immediately communicated his
order
to
the
Secretary,
Lucknow
Development Authority as also to the
District Magistrate, Lucknow which led to
issuance of notices under Section 15 (9) of
the Act, 1973 to the petitioners of three writ
petitions i.e., Writ C No. 661 of 2021, Writ
C No. 684 of 2021 and Writ C No. 687 of
2021, as to why their map in respect of the
buildings existing on the aforesaid land,
which had been sanctioned/permitted under
Section 15 (1) of the Act, 1973, be not
cancelled as they had made false statement
and misrepresented the facts regarding their
title to the land in question while applying
for sanction of map. The said notices were
issued on 18.11.2020 in all the above
mentioned three writ petitions. We are not
aware of issuance of any such notice to the
petitioner of Writ C No. 7005 of 2023 -
Abbas Ansari or his brother.

Analysis and Conclusions

21. We have heard Shri M.A.
Khan learned Senior Counsel assisted by
Mohd. Aslam Khan for the petitioner in
Writ - C No. - 7005 of 2023, Shri J.N.
Mathur, learned Senior counsel assisted
by Shri Rajesh Chandra Mishra, Shri
Mudit Agarwal and Ms. Aishwarya
Mathur for petitioners in other petitions,
Shri Shashi Prakash Singh, learned
Additional Solicitor General of India
assisted by Shri Deepanshu Das, learned
counsel for the Union of India, Shri Ajay
Kumar Mishra, learned Advocate General
assisted by Shri Kuldeep Pati Tripathi,
learned Additional Advocate General,
Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava, Shri Ishan
Mehta, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel for the State of U.P., Shri
Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned Chief
Standing counsel, Shri Tushar Verma,
learned
Additional
Chief
Standing
counsel, Shri Vivek Kumar Shukla,
learned
Additional
Chief
Standing
counsel for the State of U.P., Shri Gaurav
Mehrotra,
learned
counsel
for
the
opposite party no. 6 in Writ- C No. 7005
of 2023, Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned
Counsel for the Lucknow Development
Authority and Shri S.S. Chauhan, learned
counsel for Nagar Nigam.

22. The contention of the rival
parties shall be dealt with while discussing
and deciding various issues which have
arisen for our consideration.

23. Land bearing plot no. 93, which
is subject matter of these writ petitions, is,
as per the impugned order, a 'Non-Z.A.'
land. The Khatauni which has been
corrected is also referred as non-Z.A.
Khatauni.
586 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
24. To understand the meaning of
Non-Z.A. land or Non-Z.A. Khatauni we
need to point out that a zamindari system
was prevalent for collection of revenue in
Agra and Oudh Region which was
governed by an enactment known as United
Provinces Tenancy Act, 1939 (hereinafter
referred as the 'Act, 1939'). This Act, 1939
related to agricultural tenancies and matters
connected therewith in the aforesaid
Region. Zamindari came to be abolished in
some of the rural areas by U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950
(hereinafter referred as the 'ZA Act, 1950').
Likewise, in certain urban areas zamindari
was abolished by the Urban Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1956
(hereinafter referred as the 'Urban ZA Act,
1956'). Both these Acts repealed the Act,
1939 but only in respect of areas to which
they were made applicable. The areas, rural
or urban, in which zamindari had not been
abolished are known as Non-Z.A. land and
khataunis in respect thereof as Non-Z.A.
khataunis. These lands are governed by the
Act, 1939. Thus, even after promulgation
of the ZA Act, 1950 and the Urban ZA Act,
1956, the Act, 1939 continued to be
applicable to Non-Z.A. lands. Land in
respect to which zaminidari was abolished
by ZA Act, 1950 or Urban ZA Act, 1956
are known as Z.A. land and they are
governed by these Acts.

Applicability of the Act 1939, the
Act 1901 and Ancillary Issues

25. In the context of challenge to
orders dated 14.08.2020 and 22.03.2021,
one of the issues which arose during the
course of argument was as to whether the
Act, 1939 and the Act, 1901 would be
applicable to the land in question i.e. Plot
No. 93 (Non-Z.A. land), which falls in an
urban area i.e. in a municipality or
municipal
corporation
with
buildings
existing thereon and whether Khataunis are
at all required to be prepared in respect
thereof and whether there was any
requirement for the petitioners to get their
names mutated therein.

26. It was argued by Shri Mathur
on behalf of the petitioners that there are
buildings existing on plot no. 93, one of
which has been demolished, therefore, the
land in question is not a land referable to
Section 3 (10) of the Act, 1939 nor a
'holding' under Section 3 (7) of the said
Act, consequently no khewats or khataunis
were/are required to be prepared in respect
thereof, as such, the entire exercise of
preparation of khataunis and correction of
records by the impugned order is non-est.
Taxes are payable under the Act, 1959 to
the Municipal Corporation where his
clients were are recorded and in fact there
was no requirement for the petitioners to
get their names mutated in the revenue
records which have been unnecessarily
corrected by the impugned orders.

27. These pleas have not been
specifically taken in the pleadings in any of
the writ petitions except for a cursory
reference in Abbas Ansari's case that the
land being part of Municipal Corporation,
Lucknow, it alone had jurisdiction in such
matters.

28. We may point out that one of
the petitioners Asma Hussain claims to
have got her name recorded in Khatauni
and has annexed photocopy thereof relating
to 1462 Fasli (1955) and it is not in dispute
that Hilal Ahmed, Ata Karim and Krishna
Kumar Kalra alleged predecessors in
interest of other petitioners were all
recorded
in
the
Non-Z.A.
Khatauni
pertaining to the land in question. These
5 All. Abbas Ansari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
587
facts apparently belie the assertion of the
petitioners as noted above.

29. Further, there is no challenge to
the Non-Z.A. khataunis which admittedly
have been prepared in respect of this very
land right from the 1359 Fasli till 1472
Fasli and in which predecessor in interest
of most of the petitioners were recorded, so
was one of the petitioners Asma Hussain,
as claimed by her.

30. There is no pleading in any of
the writ petitions that Zamindari was not
abolished in respect of the land in question.

31. Section 3 (10) of the said Act,
1939 defines 'land' to mean land which is
let or held for growing of crops, or as
grove-land or for pasturage. It includes land
covered by water used for the purpose of
growing singhara or other produce, but
does not include land for the time being
occupied by buildings or appurtenant
thereto other than buildings which are
improvements.
'Improvements'
are
defined in Section 3 (8) which reads as
under:

"(8) "improvement" means with
reference to a tenant's holding :

(i) a dwelling-house erected on
the holding by the tenant for his own
occupation or a cattle shed or a storehouse or any other construction for
agricultural purposes erected or set up by
him on his holding;

(ii)
any
work
which
adds
materially to the value of the holding and is
consistent with the purpose, for which it
was let, and which, if not executed on the
holding, is either executed directly for its
benefit or is after execution made directly
beneficial to it; and, subject to the
foregoing
provisions
of
this
clause,
includes -

(a) the construction of wells,
water channels and other works for the
supply or
distribution
of
water
for
agricultural purposes;

(b) the construction of works for
the drainage of land, or for the protection
of land from floods, or from erosion or
other damage by water;

(c)
the
reclaiming,
clearing,
enclosing, or levelling of land;

(d) the erection in the immediate
vicinity of the holding otherwise than on
the village site, of buildings required for
the convenient or profitable use or
occupation of the holding;

(e) the construction of tanks or
other works for the storage of water for
agricultural purposes;

(f) the renewal or reconstruction
of any of the foregoing works, or such
alterations therein, or additions thereto, as
are not of the nature of mere repairs:
Provided
that
such
water
channels,
embankments, enclosures, temporary wells,
or other works are made by tenants in the
ordinary course of cultivation shall not be
deemed to be improvements."

32. Except buildings which are
'improvements', other buildings are not
included in the definition of 'land' under
Section 3 (10). 'Improvements' as defined
in Section 3 (8) are included in such
definition of land.

33. Section 3 (7) of the Act, 1939
defines 'holding' to mean a parcel or parcels
of land held under one lease, engagement
or grant, or in the absence of such lease,
engagement or grant under one tenure and
in the case of a thekedar includes the theka
area.
588 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
34. Section 21, mentions seven
categories of tenants. Sections 22 to 31
explain as to what is meant by the tenancies
referred therein.

35. Whether the land in question
bearing plot no. 93 was a 'land' referred
under Section 3 (10) of the Act, 1939 or a
holding under Section 3 (7) or not, in the
year 1369 Fasli (1962) and 1380 Fasli
(1973), as, essentially, it is in these Faslis
that the error is alleged to have occurred in
the records pertaining to Laxmi Narayan
and Krishna Kumar Kalra as per the
opposite parties, is not a purely legal
question. It will involve a factual inquiry as
to the nature of land and the 'use' to which
it was being put in the relevant years and it
may involve scrutiny of relevant records
relating to the those and earlier years.

36. Such issues about the nature of
the land or the use to which it was being
put in 1359 Fasli (1952), 1362 Fasli (1955)
as also 1369 (1962) and 1380 Fasli (1973)
when Laxmi Narayan and Krishna Kumar
Kalra came to be recorded for the first time
under category 5 (Ka) of Para 124A of the
Land Records Manual read with Section 32
of the Act, 1901, or thereafter, can not be
adjudicated in summary proceedings under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Correction in the entries of the subsequent
years or Faslis (upto 1472 Fasli) is only
consequential to the correction in Non-Z.A.
Khatauni of 1369 Fasli and 1380 Fasli and
restoration of entry of 1362 Fasli which
contained the remark that the property was
in the possession of custodian evacuee
properties.

37. Neither the petitioners nor the
opposite parties have disclosed the Fasli
when Hilal Ahmed and Ata Kareem came
to be first recorded. Land use would have
to be seen in respect of the Fasli when these
persons came to be recorded, but, we have
not been informed about these facts with
supporting proof.

38. When we peruse Section 3 (10),
as already noticed, it excludes land for the
time being occupied by buildings or
appurtenant thereto other than the buildings
which are improvements. 'Improvement' as
already noticed has been defined in Section
3 (8) of the Act, 1939. No such foundation
has been laid down in any of the writ
petitions with supporting proof that the
land ceased to be a 'land' within the
meaning of Section 3 (10) of the Act, 1939
or holding under Section 3 (7), if so, when,
nor
that
there
was
absolutely
no
requirement in law to maintain the khewats
or khataunis in respect thereof. Such an
issue in the very nature of things requires
evidence to be led that too relating to the
year 1359 Fasli and onwards, especially
1369 Fasli, 1380 Fasli.

39. In fact, a copy of the sale-deed
dated 02.03.1997 annexed by petitioner -
Abbas Ansari, which relates to plot no. 93
and which is said to have been executed by
Krishna Kumar Kalra son of Thakurdas in
favour of Smt. Shakeela Begum, mentions
that 'Mohd. Wasim was owner of urban
agricultural khasra no. 93 area 8 Biswa,
16 Biswansi, 4 Kachwansi in Village
Ziamau, Tehsil Lucknow, situated within
Corporation limits'. The sale-deed goes on
to mention that the plot is situated in the
shape of 'Gaddha' and is used for
agricultural purposes etc.

40. There is no undisputed proof
regarding nature of the plot in the 1359,
1362, 1369 and 1380 Fasli. Mere existence
of Bungalow thereon belonging to Mohd.
Wasim would not by itself take it out of the
5 All. Abbas Ansari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
589
purview of definition of 'land' or 'holding'
under the Act, 1939 if it was an
improvement, especially in view of the
recital in the sale-deed dated 02.03.1997
referred above.

41. The sale-deed dated 09.03.2004,
copy of which has also been annexed by
petitioner - Abbas Ansari with his rejoinder
affidavit, which was executed by Dr. Shaheed
Hussain, who had purchased it from Shakeela
Begum, in favour of Shubhanullah Ansari
states that the land is residential and is wholly
undeveloped with 12 to 14 feet deep ditches
therein. We cannot determine the veracity of
these recitals in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

42. Nothing has been stated in the
pleadings as to when the land became part of
a Development Area, if any, declared under
the Urban Planning and Development Act,
1973.

43.