# Ishan Chaudhary & Anr v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 291
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-10
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 10619 of 2025
- **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf, Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ishan-chaudhary-anr-v-union-of-india-ors-53116
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Civil Law - The Uttar Pradesh Revenue
Code, 2006- Section 80 -Application for
allotment of dealership of a Retail outlet (Petrol
Pump -rejected-the land obtained by the
petitioners on lease- application did not meet
'Dealer Selection Guidelines 2023' - as 'there are
multiple co-owners -whereas lease deed is done
from only one co-owner-impugned- Section 80
(4)
-the
division
of
holding
and
the
determination of shares of the co-bhumidhars in
a joint holding- is a pre-condition for seeking
declaration Section 80 (1) and (2)- reverse
implication cannot be inferred- no document to
demonstrate that the division of property
between all the co-owners -in case only one of
the co-bhumidhars is desirous of getting a
declaration for his share in the land with joint
interest-application be entertained only after the
respective shares of the co-bhumidhars land are
divided.

W.P. dismissed. (E-9)

## Text

4 All. Ishan Chaudhary & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
291
Rule 17 was moved on 12.09.2024
for impleading the other five unsuccessful
candidates as respondents in the petition.
The said amendment application is not
maintainable as the Act clearly provides in
sub-section (3) of Section 63 that election
petition should be joined by all contesting
candidates as respondents.

19. The defect in the election
petition cannot be cured through an
amendment application moved by election
petitioner. Section 62(4) provides the time
limit for filing of election petition. Any
defect can be cured within the time limit
prescribed under the said provision and no
alteration can be made once the time
prescribed therein expires.

20. The court below had wrongly
allowed the amendment application and
rejected the recall application filed by
returned candidate which is against the
provisions of Section 63(3) read with
Section 62(4) of the Act of 1959.

21. In view of above, the order
dated 17.09.2024 passed on the amendment
application and order dated 29.01.2025
passed on the recall application are hereby
set aside.

22.
The
writ
petition
stands
allowed.

23. The question as framed above
stands answered that is in favour of
petitioner and against respondent no.
4/election petitioner.

----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 291
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.04.2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ C No. 10619 of 2025

Ishan Chaudhary & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Akhileshwar Pratap Singh, Atul Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I, Komal Mehrotra

Civil Law - The Uttar Pradesh Revenue
Code, 2006- Section 80 -Application for
allotment of dealership of a Retail outlet (Petrol
Pump -rejected-the land obtained by the
petitioners on lease- application did not meet
'Dealer Selection Guidelines 2023' - as 'there are
multiple co-owners -whereas lease deed is done
from only one co-owner-impugned- Section 80
(4)
-the
division
of
holding
and
the
determination of shares of the co-bhumidhars in
a joint holding- is a pre-condition for seeking
declaration Section 80 (1) and (2)- reverse
implication cannot be inferred- no document to
demonstrate that the division of property
between all the co-owners -in case only one of
the co-bhumidhars is desirous of getting a
declaration for his share in the land with joint
interest-application be entertained only after the
respective shares of the co-bhumidhars land are
divided.

W.P. dismissed. (E-9)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra
Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned counsel appearing
for the respondents.

2. Present writ petition has been
filed, seeking to assail the order dated
4.3.2025
passed
by
respondent
292 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
no.4/Territory Manager (Retail) Mathura in
terms of which, the petitioners have been
found to be ineligible for allotment of
Retail-outlet (Petrol Pump) dealership.

3. As per the pleadings in the writ
petition,
the
petitioners
applied
for
allotment of dealership of a Retail-outlet
(Petrol Pump), location at Village Nagla
Santhal, Tehsil Kheragarh, on Kheragarh to
Saipu Road, District Agra, in response to a
notification dated 28.6.2023 issued by
respondent
no.2-Bharat
Petroleum
Corporation Ltd.1.

4. The land which had been offered
for the purpose of establishing the retailoutlet was stated to have been obtained by
the petitioners on lease executed by one
Vijay Singh, being part of Khasra No.177,
measuring an area of 1332 sq. meters,
situated at Village Nagla, Santhal, TehsilKheragarh, District Agra.

5. The documents uploaded by the
petitioners and the information provided by
them in the application were evaluated by
the Scrutiny Committee of respondent
no.2-BPCL and it was found that the
application did not meet 'Dealer Selection
Guidelines
2023'
and,
therefore,
the
application was rejected by means of an email dated 16.8.2024, wherein the reason
for rejection was mentioned as 'there are
multiple co-owners of offered khasra
no.177 as per uploaded copy of khatauni,
whereas lease deed is done from only one
co-owner'.

6. The petitioners, at this stage,
filed
a
writ
petition,
being
Writ-C
No.40696 of 2024, which was disposed of
by means of an order dated 16.1.2025,
directing respondent no.2-BPCL to decide
the
representation
dated
23.8.2024
submitted by the petitioners with regard to
their claim.

7. Pursuant to the aforesaid order
passed in Writ-C No.40696 of 2024, the
representation of the petitioners was
examined and in terms of an order dated
4.3.2025, the petitioners have been held to
be ineligible for allotment of retail-outlet
dealership. Aggrieved by the said order
dated 4.3.2025, the present writ petition has
been filed.

8. It has been argued on behalf of
the petitioners that the selection of the
petitioners has been cancelled only on the
ground that the lease deed ought to have
been executed by all the co-tenure holders,
whereas the land in question, which was
offered by them, had already been
partitioned by an order dated 20.12.2019,
declaring the share of Vijay Singh, the
person who had executed the lease deed in
favour of the petitioners. It is urged that as
per terms of sub-section (4) of Section 80
of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 20062,
once the declaration has been made under
Section 80, that would presuppose that the
land
in
question
had
already
been
divided/partitioned in accordance with the
provisions of law.

9. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent nos.2 to 4 has
controverted the aforesaid argument by
submitting that the order dated 20.12.2019
has been passed under Section 80 (1) of the
Code, 2006, which is only with regard to
the declaration of the non-agricultural use
of the land, and cannot be construed to be
an order by which, the land in question
could be said to have been partitioned.

10. It has been pointed out that as
per clause no.4 (vi) of the 'Selection
4 All. Ishan Chaudhary & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
293
Brochure' for Selection of Dealers, if the
offered land is on long term lease and there
are multiple co-owners, then such lease
deed should have been executed by all the
co-owners of the offered plot. In the instant
case, the lease deed, having not been
executed by all the co-owners, the same is
to be treated as invalid for the purpose of
selection of dealers.

11. We have heard learned counsel
for the parties and perused the records.

12. The Selection Brochure for
selection of dealers contains a clear
stipulation under Clause No.4 (vi) that
where the offered land is on long term lease
and there are multiple owners, the lease
should be executed by all the co-owners,
and in the absence of the lease deed having
been executed in such a manner, it would
be treated to be invalid.

13. It is an undisputed fact that the
lease deed had been executed in favour of
the petitioners by only one of the coowners of the plot whereas, as per the
revenue record, i.e. Khatauni extract, there
are four other co-owners of the plot in
question.

14. Contention, which has been put
forth on behalf of the petitioners that the
land in question had been partitioned by
means of the order dated 20.12.2019 has
not been accepted by the respondent no.4
for the reason that the said order passed
under Section 80 (1) of the Code, 2006 had
the effect of declaring non-agricultural use
of the land and could not be construed to be
an order which would have the effect of
creating a partition between the co-owners
of the land in question. The order
impugned
dated
4.3.2025
passed
by
respondent no.2 clearly takes note of this
factual position in paragraphs VIII and IX,
which are extracted below:

 "VIII. Further we like to draw
your kind attention to the information
mentioned
in
your
application
form
regarding land details in which you have
mentioned that location Khasra/Gat/Survey
No.177 is owned solely by Aditya Chandra
and Ishan Chaudhary. You have taken lease
from only one co-owner of the plot.
However as per Khatauni there are four
other co-owners in same gata number.
This is in violation of clause no.22 False
Information of Dealer Selection Guidelines
2023 pointed out in this letter under II (b).

IX. Based on documents provided
by you and details filled in application, it
can be concluded that certain portion of
offered plot is converted from agriculture
to non-agriculture under section 80 of U.P.
Revenue Act, 2006 but not partitioned.
Also land conversion under section 80 of
U.P. Revenue can't be construed as
partition as it is conditional and subjected
to adherence to compliance of condition
mentioned in conversion order. Hence
your lease deed is not valid as per
Brochure for Dealer Selection Guidelines
2023."

15. In order to examine the
contention put forth on behalf of the
petitioners that as per the terms of subsection (4) of Section 80 of the Code, 2006,
once a declaration had been made under
sub-section (1), that would create a
presumption that the land in question had
already been partitioned, we may be
required to refer to the relevant statutory
provisions.

16. The Uttar Pradesh Revenue
Code, 2006 is an Act to consolidate and
amend the law relating to land tenure and
294 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
land revenue in the State of Uttar Pradesh
and to provide for matters connected therewith
and incidental thereto. The declaration as to
non-agricultural use of land is to be made as per
terms of Section 80 of the Code, 2006, which is
extracted below:

 "80. Use of holding for Industrial,
Commercial or Residential purposes. - (1)
Where a bhumidhar with transferable rights
uses his holding or part thereof, for industrial,
commercial or residential purposes, the SubDivisional Officer may, suo motu or on an
application moved by such bhumidhar, after
making such enquiry as may be prescribed,
either make a declaration that the land is being
used for the purpose not connected with
agriculture or reject the application. The SubDivisional Officer shall take a decision on the
application within forty five working days
from the date of receipt of the application.
In case the application is rejected, the SubDivisional
Officer
shall
state
the
reasons in writing for such rejection and
inform the applicant of his decision.

Provided
that
if
the
application
for
declaration
is
accompanied with the prescribed fee
and in case of joint holding, no
objection
of
co-tenure
holders
is
attached in case of co-tenure holder and
if the declaration is not made by the
Sub-Divisional Officer within forty five
days as aforesaid, then the declaration
shall be deemed to have been made.
Tehsildar will make a record of it in the
revenue records, with the comment
"subject to the order of the SubDivisional Officer".

If any affected party wants to file
an objection in relation to the said
declaration, it may file an objection in the
competent court.

(2) Where a bhumidhar with
transferable rights proposes to use in future
his holding or part thereof, for industrial,
commercial or residential purposes, the
Sub-Divisional
Officer
may
on
an
application moved by such bhumidhar,
after making such enquiry as may be
prescribed, either make a declaration that
the land may be used for the purpose not
connected with agriculture or reject the
application, within forty five working days
from the date of receipt of the application.
In case the application is rejected, the SubDivisional Officer shall state the reasons in
writing of such rejection and inform the
applicant of his decision:

Provided further that if the
bhumidhar fails to start the proposed nonagricultural activity within a period of five
years from the date of declaration under
this sub-section, then the declaration under
sub-section (2) for the holding or part
thereof shall lapse:

Provided also that a declaration
under this sub-section (2) shall not amount
to change of land use and the land shall
continue to be treated as agricultural land
only. However, the bhumidhar shall be
entitled to obtain loan and other necessary
permissions, clearances, etc. for the activity
or project, proposed on the holding or part
thereof, for which declaration under this
sub-section has been obtained.

(3)
A
bhumidhar
possessing
declaration under sub-section (2) for his
holding or part thereof, may apply to SubDivisional
Officer
for
converting
declaration under sub-section (2) to a
declaration under sub-section (1), after
completion of construction activity or start
of the proposed non-agricultural activity,
within a period of five years from
declaration under sub-section (2). On
receipt of such an application, the SubDivisional Officer, after making such
enquiry as necessary, shall approve or
reject the application within a period of 15
4 All. Ishan Chaudhary & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
295
days from the receipt of the application. In
case of rejection, he shall record in writing
the reasons for such rejection:

Provided that for conversion of
declaration under sub-section (2) to a
declaration under sub-section (1), the
bhumidhar shall be liable to pay only the
balance amount of fee payable, calculated
at prevailing circle rate, after adjusting the
amount already paid by him for declaration
under sub-section (2) earlier.

(4)
No
application
for
a
declaration under sub-section (1) or subsection (2), moved by any co-bhumidhar
having undivided interest in bhumidhari
land
shall
be
maintainable,
unless
application is moved by all the cobhumidhars of such bhumidhari land. In
case only one of the co-bhumidhar wants to
get a declaration for his share in the land
with joint interest, then such an application
shall
be
entertained
only
after
the
respective shares of the co-bhumidhars in
the land have been divided in accordance
with the provisions of law.

(5)
The
application
for
declaration [under sub-section (1) or subsection (2)] shall contain such particulars
and shall be made in such manner as may
be prescribed.

(6) Where the application under
sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) is made
in respect of a part of the holding, the SubDivisional Officer may, in the manner
prescribed,
demarcate
such
part
for
purposes of such declaration.

(7) No declaration under this
section shall be made by the SubDivisional Officer, if he is satisfied that the
land or part thereof is being used or is
proposed to be used for a purpose which is
likely to cause a public nuisance or to
affect adversely public order, public health,
safety or convenience or which is against
the uses proposed in the master plan.

(8) In case the land or part thereof
for which a declaration under this section is
being sought falls within the area notified
under any Urban or Industrial Development
Authority, then prior permission of the
concerned Development Authority shall be
mandatory.

(9) The State Government may
fix the scale of fees for declaration under
this section and different fees may be fixed
for different purposes:

Provided that if the applicant uses
the holding or part thereof, for his own
residential purpose, no fee shall be charged
for the declaration under this section."

17. It would be pertinent to take
note of the provision, as it originally stood
prior to being substituted by Section 8 of
the U P Revenue Code (Amendment) Act,
2019 (Act No.7 of 2019), which reads as
under:

 "80.
Use
of
holding
for
Industrial, Commercial or Residential
purposes. - (1) Where a Bhumidhar with
transferable rights uses his holding or part
thereof, for industrial, commercial or
residential purposes, the Sub-Divisional
Officer may, suo motu or on an application
moved by such Bhumidhar, after making
such inquiry as may be prescribed, either
make a declaration that the land is being
used for the purpose not connected with
agriculture or reject the application. The
Sub-Divisional Officer shall state the
reasons in writing of such declaration or
rejection and inform the applicant of his
decision within forty five working days
from the date of receipt of the application:

Provided that no such declaration
under this section shall be made merely on
the ground that the holding or part thereof
is surrounded by boundary wall or is
"Parti" on the spot:
296 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Provided
further
that
no
application for the declaration under this
sub-section moved by any co-bhumidhar
having undivided interest in Bhumidhari
land
shall
be
maintainable,
unless
application is moved by all the cobhumidhars of such bhumidhari land or
their interests therein are divided in
accordance with provisions of law.

(2)
The
application
for
declaration under sub-section (1) shall
contain such particulars and shall be made
in such manner as may be prescribed.

(3) Where the application under
sub-section (1) is made in respect of a part
of the holding, the Sub-Divisional Officer
may, in the manner prescribed, demarcate
such part for purposes of such declaration.

(4) No declaration under this
section shall be issued by the SubDivisional Officer, if he is satisfied that the
land is to be used for a purpose which is
likely to cause a public nuisance or to
affect adversely public order, public health,
safety or convenience or against uses
purposes in the Master Plan.

(5) The State Government may
fix the scale of fees for declaration under
this section and different fees may be fixed
for different purposes:

Provided that if the applicant uses
the holding or part thereof for his own
residential purpose, no fee shall be charged
for the declaration under this section."

18. The relevant rules related to
Section 80 of the Code, 2006, under the U
P Revenue Code Rules, 20163 are also
reproduced below:

 "85. Application for declaration
(Section 80). (1) A bhumidhar with
transferable rights using his holding or any
part thereof for a purpose not connected
with agriculture may apply to the SubDivisional Officer for a declaration under
section 80(1) in R.C. Form-25.

(2) The applicant shall pay the
required amount of declaration fee which
shall be one percent of the amount
calculated as per the circle rate for
agricultural purpose fixed by Collector of
the district concerned or as per the rate
fixed by State Government from time to
time.
 (3) On receipt of the application
under sub-rule (1), the Sub-Divisional
Officer may cause an inquiry to be made
through a revenue officer not below the
rank of a Revenue Inspector for the purpose
of satisfying himself that the holding or
part thereof is really being used for a nonagricultural purpose. The concerned officer
shall, after spot verification submit his
report
to
the
Sub-Divisional
Officer
indicating the purpose for which the
holding or part thereof is being actually
used.

86. Notice to the bhumidhar
(Section 80). - Where the proceedings
under section 80(1) has been initiated by
the Sub-Divisional Officer on his own
motion, he shall issue notice to the
bhumidhar concerned, and the inquiry
referred to in rule 85(3) shall be held after
the reply, if any, of the bhumidhar is
submitted.

87.
Grant
of
declaration
(Section 80). - If after scrutinizing the
report of the revenue officer, the SubDivisional Officer is satisfied:

(a) that the entire holding is being
used for a purpose not connected with
agriculture; and

(b) that the conditions specified
in section 80(4) are complied with, he may
make a declaration under section 80(1), in
respect of such holding.

88. Apportionment of Land
Revenue (Section 80). - (1) If only a part
4 All. Ishan Chaudhary & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
297
of the holding is being used by a
bhumidhar with transferable rights for a
non-agricultural purpose, and the SubDivisional Officer is satisfied that the
provisions of the second proviso to section
80(1) have not been contravened, he may
make a declaration only with respect of
such part, provided that the cost of
demarcation as per sub-rule (2) of the rule
22 is deposited by the bhumidhar before
such declaration.

(2) Where the proceeding for
declaration in respect of a part of the
holding is initiated by the Sub-Divisional
Officer suo motu, the cost of such
demarcation shall be recovered by the SubDivisional Officer as arrears of land
revenue.

(3) In every case of declaration
under sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2), the
demarcation shall be made on the basis of
the existing survey map, and the SubDivisional Officer shall apportion the land
revenue payable by such bhumidhar.

(4) The Sub-Divisional Officer
shall make an endeavor to conclude the
proceeding for declaration under subsection (1) of section 80 within the period
of 45 days from the date of registration of
the application and if the proceeding is
not concluded within such period the
reasons for the same shall be recorded."

19. The second proviso to subsection (1) of Section 80 of the Code,
2006, as it originally stood, provided, in
clear terms, that no application for
declaration under sub-section (1) moved
by any co-bhumidhar having undivided
interest in bhumidhari land shall be
maintainable, unless the application is
moved by all co-bhumidhars of such
bhumidhari land or their interests therein
are divided in accordance with the
provisions of law.
20. Rule 88 of the Rules, 2016,
which related to apportionment of land
revenue consequent to the declaration made
under Section 80 of the Code, 2006
provides for a demarcation in case
declaration had been sought only for a part
of the holding which was being used for
non-agricultural purpose. The demarcation
in the said case is to be made as per the
procedure prescribed under Rule 22 of the
Rules, 2016, which relates to settlement of
boundary disputes envisaged under Section
24 of the Code, 2006.

21. In terms of Section 8 of the U P
Revenue Code (Amendment) 2019 (Act
No.7 of 2019), Section 80 of the Code,
2006, as it originally stood, has been
substituted in its entirety. Sub-section (4) of
Section 80 of the Code, 2006, as it
presently stands, provides, in clear terms,
that no application for declaration under
sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) moved by
any
co-bhumidhar,
having
undivided
interest in a bhumidhari land shall be
maintainable, unless the application is
moved by all the co-bhumidhars of such
bhumidhari land. It further provides that in
case only one of the co-bhumidhars wants
to get a declaration for his share in the land
with joint interest, then such an application
shall
be
entertained
only
after
the
respective shares of the co-bhumidhars in
the land have been divided in accordance
with the provisions of law. The division of
holding consequent to which shares of cobhumidhars in a land can be divided, is to
be as per the terms of Section 116 of the
Code, 2006.

22. As a consequence of division of
holding under Section 116 of the Code,
2006, it is enjoined upon the court
concerned, as a duty under sub-section (1)
(b) of Section 117, to apportion the land
298 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
revenue payable in respect of each such
division. The procedure pertaining to
division of holdings is provided under
Rules 107, 108 and 109 of the Rules, 2016
and in terms of Rule 109 (8) (c), it is
provided that at the stage of the final
decree, the Court concerned shall apportion
the land revenue payable by the parties.

23. Sub-section (4) of Section 80 of
the Code, 2006 contains a clear interdict
against any application, being moved by
any
co-bhumidhar
having
undivided
interest in the bhumidhari land, for a
declaration under sub-section (1) or subsection (2), unless the application is moved
by all co-bhumidhars of such bhumidhari
land. It further provides that in case only one
of the co-bhumidhars is desirous of getting a
declaration for his share in the land with joint
interest, then such an application shall be
entertained only after the respective shares of
the co-bhumidhars in the land are divided in
accordance with the provisions of law.

24. A plain reading of the aforesaid
provisions would make it clear that the
application, at the instance of a co-bhumidhar
having his share in t he land with joint
interest, would have to be preceded by the
determination of shares of the co-bhumidhars
in the land in question in accordance with the
provisions of law. This would mean that an
application for declaration under sub-section
(1) or sub-section (2) at the behest of any cobhumidhar, having undivided interest in the
bhumidhari land, would be maintainable only
upon fulfilment of the necessary precondition that the land in question had been
divided in accordance with the provisions of
law, i.e. as per the provisions contained under
Section 116 of the Code, 2006 and the
relevant Rules.
25. The argument which has been
raised on behalf of the petitioners that the
declaration under Section 80 (1) of the
Code, 2006 would necessarily mean that
the land in question had already been
divided, cannot be accepted for the reason
that as per the provisions contained in subsection (4) of Section 80 of the Code, 2006,
the
division
of
holding
and
the
determination
of
shares
of
the
cobhumidhars in a joint holding, is a precondition for seeking declaration under
sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section
80 of the Code, 2006; however the reverse
implication cannot be inferred.

26. In the instant case, no document
has been placed on record to demonstrate that
the division of property in question had been
made between all the co-owners as per the
provisions contained in Section 116 of the
Code, 2006.

27. Having regard to the aforesaid
position, we do not find any material error or
illegality in the order impugned, so as to
interfere with the same in the extraordinary
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution.

28. The writ petition lacks merit
and is, accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 298
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.04.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.

Writ C No. 21818 of 2023

Santosh Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
Assistant
Secretary/Deputy
Secretary/Secretary
Insurance
Ombudsman, Lucknow & Ors.
 ...Respondent