# Jayraj Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 533
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-24
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 41221 of 2024
- **Bench:** Kshitij Shailendra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jayraj-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53158
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

534 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
C.S.C., Sri Sunil Kumar Singh

Civil Law - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 -
Section 144 - Declaratory suits by tenure
holders - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, S. 76
- Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections 131A &
131B - Conferment of the status of
Bhumidhar with transferable rights upon a
Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights -
Notwithstanding that a person might have
acquired the status of Bhumidhar with
transferable rights, such an aspect needs
adjudication by the Sub-Divisional Officer
in appropriate suit proceedings under
Section 144 of the Code, 2006, where the
State as well as the Gram Panchayat shall
be necessary parties and would have their
say in the proceedings, and not on the
administrative side on a bare application -
Sub-Divisional Officer has no statutory
competence to grant a declaration of
Bhumidhari rights on the administrative
side, as such, no writ of mandamus can be
issued for the said relief - The party is
always at liberty to institute statutory
proceedings under Section 144 of the
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (Paras 8, 11,
15)

Dismissed. ( E-5)

## Text

4 All. Jayraj Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
533
wherein mesne profits, mental
agony and harassment, legal expenses, rent
paid by Respondent No.4 since January
2018 with 10% annual increments, interest
paid for the Bank loan and House tax,
water tax and electricity charges etc. have
all been described in detail besides other
expenses for depreciation of property. The
total loss has been calculated of more than
Rs. One Crore.

55.
This
Court
having
gone
through the judicial precedents as aforesaid
relating to writ jurisdiction being an
equitable jurisdiction and the responsibility
of the litigant to approach this Court with
frank and full disclosure of facts, avoiding
any
active
misrepresentation
and
suppression of material facts, finds that the
petitioners have filed this writ petition in an
attempt to deliberately pollute the stream of
justice. Not only this Court has found
misrepresentation from the pleadings on
record and documentary evidence filed by
the Bank in its affidavits, this Court has
also found deliberate attempt at protracting
of litigation to enable the petitioners to
continue to occupy House No.88, Sector13, Indira Nagar Vistar Yojana, Lucknow,
despite the property having been auctioned
way back on 21.12.2017.

56. Not only has the Court's
precious time which may have been
utilized for genuinely suffering litigants has
been wasted; the Respondent no.4 has also
suffered grievously.

57. This Court even on merits has
not found the arguments raised by the
counsel for the petitioners to be sustainable.
Hence, the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed and it is hereby dismissed with
costs of Rs.25 lacs [Rupees Twenty Five
Lacs only] which shall be payable within
three months before this Court by way of
Demand Draft made out in favour of the
Senior Registrar High Court Lucknow
Bench

58. In case of failure to do so, the
Senior Registrar of this Court shall issue a
Recovery
Certificate
to
the
District
Magistrate, Lucknow, who shall recover
such costs as arrears of land revenue from
the petitioners' movable and immovable
properties and deposit the same in the High
Court sitting at Lucknow.

59. Such costs when deposited
shall be released in favour of the
Respondent no.4, namely, Smt. Mamta
Yadav by the Senior Registrar on an
appropriate application being moved in this
regard by the Respondent no.4.

60. Since this writ petition has been
dismissed and order of the DRAT stands
affirmed, the petitioners are bound to
vacate the property in question within one
month from today.

----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 533
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Writ C No. 41221 of 2024

Jayraj Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Pulak Ganguly

Counsel for the Respondents:
534 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
C.S.C., Sri Sunil Kumar Singh

Civil Law - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 -
Section 144 - Declaratory suits by tenure
holders - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, S. 76
- Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections 131A &
131B - Conferment of the status of
Bhumidhar with transferable rights upon a
Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights -
Notwithstanding that a person might have
acquired the status of Bhumidhar with
transferable rights, such an aspect needs
adjudication by the Sub-Divisional Officer
in appropriate suit proceedings under
Section 144 of the Code, 2006, where the
State as well as the Gram Panchayat shall
be necessary parties and would have their
say in the proceedings, and not on the
administrative side on a bare application -
Sub-Divisional Officer has no statutory
competence to grant a declaration of
Bhumidhari rights on the administrative
side, as such, no writ of mandamus can be
issued for the said relief - The party is
always at liberty to institute statutory
proceedings under Section 144 of the
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (Paras 8, 11,
15)

Dismissed. ( E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,
J.)

WHETHER
BHUMIDHARI
RIGHTS CAN BE CONFERRED OR
DECLARED BY SUB DIVISIONAL
OFFICER
ON
ADMINISTRATIVE
SIDE

1. Heard Sri H.C. Dwivedi, learned
counsel holding brief of Sri Pulak
Ganguly for the petitioner, learned
Standing
Counsel
for
the
State
respondents and Sri Sunil Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.

RELIEF CLAIMED:

2. Prayer made in the writ petition is
to issue a writ of mandamus commanding
the
respondents
to
grant
absolute
Bhumidhari rights in favour of the
petitioner in view of Sections 131A and
131B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950
(in short 'Act, 1950') read with Section 76
of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short
'Code, 2006'). Further prayer is to issue a
direction
for
consideration
of
the
petitioner's
representations
dated
07.05.2022 and 15.06.2024 moved before
the Sub-Divisional Officer concerned.

CONTENTION OF PETITIONER

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that on account of certain
previous proceedings in relation to the
lease granted in favour of the petitioner
and with the passage of time, the
petitioner
has
acquired
status
of
Bhumidhar
with
transferable
rights.
Reference to Section 131A and 131B of
the Act of 1950 has been made in this
regard and, by referring to Section 76 of
the Code-2006, it is urged that as per
Sub-section (2) thereof, after expiry of a
period of five years from acquiring the
status
as
Bhumidhar
with
nontransferable
rights
before
the
commencement of Code, 2006, the tenure
holder would acquire status as Bhumidhar
with transferable rights, therefore such
rights should be conferred upon him by
Sub-Divisional Officer.

ANALYSIS:

4. The Court has considered the
submissions and has also gone through the
provisions of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950
and U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. For the
purpose of case, Sections 131A and 131B
of the Act, 1950 are reproduced as under:-
4 All. Jayraj Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
535

"131A. Bhumidhari rights in
Gaon Sabha or State Government land
in certain circumstances.- Subject to the
provisions of Section 132 and Section 133A, every person in cultivatory possession of
any land, vested in a Gaon Sabha under
Section 117 or belonging to the State
Government, in the portion of District
Mirzapur South of Kaimur Range, other
than the land notified under Section 20 of
the Indian Forest Act, 1927, before the 30th
day of June, 1978, shall be deemed to
have become a Bhumidhar with nontransferable rights of such land :

Provided that where the land in
cultivatory possession of a person, together
with any other land held by him in Uttar
Pradesh
exceeds
the
ceiling
area
determined
under
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings
Act, 1960, the rights of a Bhumidhar
with non-transferable rights shall accrue
in favour of such person in respect of so
much area of the first-mentioned land, as
together with such other land held by him,
does not exceed the ceiling area applicable
to him, and the said area shall be
demarcated in the prescribed manner in
accordance with the principles laid down in
the aforesaid Act.

131B. Bhumidhar with nontransferable
rights
to
become
bhumidhar with transferable rights after
ten years.- (1) 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 and
had been such bhumidhar for a period of
ten years or more, shall become a
bhumidhar with transferable rights on
such commencement

(2) Every person who is a
bhumidhar with non-transferable rights on
the commencement referred to in subsection (1) or 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.

(3) ...?"

(emphasis by Court)

5. A bare perusal of the aforesaid
provisions would reflect that the Act, 1950
contemplated conferment of status as
Bhumidhar with transferable rights on
those who had been Bhumidhar with nontransferable rights with reference to certain
provisions which came into existence
pursuant to amendments made in the Act,
1950 during the course of time.

6. As far as Section 76 of the Code,
2006 is concerned, the same is reproduced
as under:-

"76.
Bhumidhar
with
nontransferable rights. - (1) Every person
belonging to any of the following classes
shall be called a bhumidhar with nontransferable rights and shall have all the
rights and be subject to all the liabilities
conferred or imposed upon such bhumidhar
by or under this Code, namely :-

(a) to (e) ..?

(2) 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
536 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
become Bhumidhar with transferable rights
on such commencement.

(3) Every person who was a
Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights
on the commencement referred to in [subsections
(1)
and
(2)]
or
becomes
Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights
after such commencement shall become
Bhumidhar with transferable rights after
expiry of [five years] from his becoming
Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights.

(4) ...?"

7. Sub-section (2) of Section 76
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.

8. 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.

9. The Court now proceeds to consider
the
statutory
provisions
granting
declaration of rights and finds that Section
144 of the Code, 2006 deals with
declaratory suit to be filed by the tenure
holder, who claims to be Bhumidhar of any
holding or part thereof. The provision reads
as under:-

"144.
Declaratory
suits
by
tenure holders.- (1) Any person claiming
to be a bhumidhar or asami of any
holding or part thereof, whether exclusively
or jointly with any other person, may sue
for a declaration of his rights in such
holding or part.

(2) In every suit under subsection (1) instituted by or on behalf of :-

(a) a bhumidhar, the State and the
[Gram Panchayat] shall be necessary
parties;

(b) an asami, the land-holder shall
be a necessary party."

10. A plain and simple reading of
Section 144 would reflect that a person
claiming to be a Bhumidhari or Asami of
any holding or part thereof, may sue for a
declaration of his rights in such holding or
part thereof and State of U.P. and Gram
Panchayat shall be necessary parties to
such proceedings, if instituted.

HELD:

11. In view of scheme of the Code,
2006, notwithstanding that the petitioner
might have acquired status as that of
Bhumidhar with transferable rights, such an
aspect needs adjudication by the SubDivisional Officer in appropriate suit
proceedings under Section 144 of the Code,
2006, where the State as well as Gram
Panchayat shall be necessary parties and
would have their say in the proceedings,
and not an administrative side on a bare
application.
4 All. Moradabad Bareilly Expressway Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
537

12. 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.

MANDAMUS
CANNOT
BE
ISSUED:-

13. As far as writ of mandamus is
concerned,
In
Oriental
Bank
of
Commerce Vs. Sunder Lal Jain and
another (2008) 2 SCC 280, the Apex
Court,
after
referring
to
its
earlier
judgments in Bihar Eastern Gangetic
Fisherman Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs.
Sipahi Singh (1977) 4 SCC 145; Lekhraj
Sathramdas Lalvani Vs. N.M. Shah, AIR
1966 SC 334 and Dr. Uma Kant Saran
Vs. State of Bihar 1993(1) SCC 485,
observed that a writ of mandamus can be
granted only in a case where there is a
statutory duty imposed upon the officer
concerned and there is a failure on the part
of that officer to discharge the statutory
obligation."

14. The above exposition of law
makes it clear that writ of mandamus
cannot be issued on mere asking unless the
pre-conditions are satisfied. Such welldefined conditions are not satisfied in the
present case.

15. Since it has been found that the
Sub Divisional Officer has no statutory
competence to grant a declaration of
Bhumidhari rights on administrative side,
no writ of mandamus, as prayed for, can be
issued. However, the petitioner is always at
liberty to institute statutory proceedings
under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006.

16. The writ petition is, accordingly,
disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 537
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGARWAL, J.

Writ C No. 41272 of 2024

Moradabad Bareilly Expressway Ltd.
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Prashant Mishra, Tarun Agrawal

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950 -
Article 226 - Indian Stamp Act, 1899 -
Sections 3, 19(a), 33, 33(4) & 33(5) - Writ
Petition - challenging the impugned order by
which collector rejected the objection of
limitation in a stamp deficiency case - a
concession agreement (instrument) executed
between the petitioner and the NHAI, in year
2010, for maintenance of NH-24 - Proceeding
initiated by the St. authorities for deficiency of
stamp duty - case was registered, in 2020 -
order passed in 2022, determining deficiency in
stamp duty payable by the petitioner -
petitioner filed a recall application - rejected -
writ petition - matter was remanded to the
Collector for fresh adjudication, with liberty
granted to the petitioner to raise plea of
limitation and jurisdiction - impugned order
passed - rejecting the petitioner's contention
regarding limitation - present writ petition -
court finds that, the legislature had not