# Karamjeet Singh & Ors v. Board of Revenue & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 1335
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-19
- **Case number:** Writ-B No. 24167 of 2017
- **Bench:** Chandra Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/karamjeet-singh-ors-v-board-of-revenue-ors-51804
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article
226-U.P.
Revenue
Code,2006Sections 76(dd) & 77-The petitioner's
father was allotted land in 1973 and
recorded as a Sirdar later becoming a
Bhumidhar with non-trnasferable rights
under operation of law-In 1989, his name
was expunged from revenue records,
downgrading
his
status
to
AsamiSubsequent
revisions
challenging
this
decision were dismissed-Held, the court
ruled that the land was not covered u/s 77
of the Code,2006-U/s 76(dd), even an
Asami
in
possession
could
acquire
Bhumidhar rights if conditions were metThe impugned orders were found illegal
and were set aside-The respondents were
directed to record the petitioners'name as
bhumidhar with transferable rights within
six weeks.(Para 1 to 16)

The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

4 All. Karamjeet Singh & Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors.
1335
taken steps to serve respondent no.4 in
proper manner rather transferred the
property in question from time to time in
favour of strangers, as such, petitioners are
not entitled to any relief in the matter.

14. Considering the conduct of
petitioner no.1 as well as the order dated
26.3.1981 passed by the Consolidation
Officer rejecting the title objection filed by
the petitioner, no interference is required in
the matter, the writ petition is accordingly,
dismissed.

15. No order as to cost.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 1335
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ-B No. 24167 of 2017

Karamjeet Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Board of Revenue & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Arvind Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Pradeep Singh

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article
226-U.P.
Revenue
Code,2006Sections 76(dd) & 77-The petitioner's
father was allotted land in 1973 and
recorded as a Sirdar later becoming a
Bhumidhar with non-trnasferable rights
under operation of law-In 1989, his name
was expunged from revenue records,
downgrading
his
status
to
AsamiSubsequent
revisions
challenging
this
decision were dismissed-Held, the court
ruled that the land was not covered u/s 77
of the Code,2006-U/s 76(dd), even an
Asami
in
possession
could
acquire
Bhumidhar rights if conditions were metThe impugned orders were found illegal
and were set aside-The respondents were
directed to record the petitioners'name as
bhumidhar with transferable rights within
six weeks.(Para 1 to 16)

The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Gangadeen Vs St.of U.P. & ors.(2018) 138 RD
68

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Arvind Srivastava,
learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.
Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel for the Staterespondent and Mr. Pradeep Singh, learned
counsel for respondent No. 4/Gaon Sabha.

2. Brief facts of the case are that
the petitioners' father was employed in the
Indian Army and after retirement from the
Armed Forces, he was inclined to settle at
Mauza Roshannagar, Pargana Arhaura,
Tehsil
Chunar,
District
Mirzapur.
Petitioners' father filed an application dated
24.03.1973 before the District Magistrate,
Mirzapur, for allotting a peace of land to
him so that he may cultivate, reside and
earn his livelihood. On the application of
petitioners' father proceeding was started
and a land was allotted in favour of
petitioners' father on 22.10.1973. The SubDivisional Magistrate granted his approval
in respect to the aforementioned allotment
made in favour of the petitioners' father
giving him Sirdari right in respect to plot
Nos. 84, 102, 104, 1, 64/1, 103, 104/183.
Naiyab
Tehsildar,
vide
order
dated
20.08.1975, ordered to record the name of
petitioners' father as Sirdar in respect to
plot Nos. 84, 102, 104, 1, 64/1, 103,
1336 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
104/183.
In
pursuance
of
the
aforementioned allotment made in favour
of the petitioners' father construction was
made by him. After expiry of ten years, a
proceeding was initiated in respect to the
the
aforementioned
Sirdari
right
of
petitioners and Tehsildar, vide order dated
07.12.1989, recommended to record the
aforementioned plot as Asami class-3 after
expiring the entry of bhumidhar with nontransferable right. The aforementioned
report dated 07.12.1989 was accepted by
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, vide order dated
26.12.1989. Against
the
order
dated
26.12.1989, a revision was filed by
petitioners' father before the Commissioner,
which
was
dismissed
by
Additional
Commissioner,
vide
order
dated
08.05.1997. Petitioners' father challenged
the
order
dated
08.05.1997,
through
revision before the Board of Revenue, but
Board of Revenue has also dismissed the
revision vide order dated 01.03.2017.
Hence, this writ petitioner challenging the
order dated 26.12.1989 passed by SubDivisional
Magistrate,
order
dated
08.05.1997
passed
by
Additional
Commissioner and order dated 01.03.2017
passed by Board of Revenue.

3. This Court, vide order dated
26.05.2017, entertained the matter and
granted interim protection in favour of
petitioners. In pursuance of the order dated
26.05.2017, counter affidavit has been filed
by State and petitioners has filed his
rejoinder affidavit also.

4.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners submitted that petitioners' father
was granted lease in the year 1973 being exarmy man as such, the entry of the petitioner
cannot be expunged in arbitrary manner
without cancelling the lease executed in
favour of the petitioners' father in accordance
with law. He further submitted that on the
basis of lease executed in favour of
petitioners' father, the entry was made in the
revenue record as Sirdar and later on, due to
operation of law petitioners' father became
bhumidhar, with non-transferable right. He
further placed a copy of Khatauni, which is
annexed as Annexure No. 6 to the instant
petition, in which petitioners' father was
recorded as bhumidhar with non-transferable
right in respect to plot in question. He further
submitted that due to further operation of law,
the petitioners' father is to be recorded as
bhumidhar with transferable right, but under
the impugned order, the petitioners entry has
been expunged on misconceived ground that
petitioners were asami of the plot in question
as such, no right will accrue to petitioners
after expiry of five years. He further
submitted that in view of provisions
contained under Section 76 (dd) of U.P.
Revenue Code 2006, every person, who was
even an asami in possession of land not
covered by Section 77 of U.P. Revenue Code
2006 shall be given bhumidhari right. He
further submitted that the land in dispute is
not covered under Section 77 of the U.P.
Revenue Code 2006 as such, even assuming,
though without admitting, that the petitioners'
father was asami, petitioners will be entitled
to the benefit of Section 76 (dd) of the U.P.
Revenue Code 2006 and petitioners are
entitled to be recorded as bhumidhar with
transferable right as petitioners' father has
expired. He further submitted that impugned
orders passed by Sub-Divisional Officer,
Additional Commissioner and Board of
Revenue are wholly illegal as such, the same
are liable to be set aside and petitioners
should be recorded as bhumidhar with
transferable right.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Rajesh
Kumar Tiwari, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State and Mr.
4 All. Karamjeet Singh & Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors.
1337
Pradeep
Singh,learned
counsel
for
respondent No. 4/Gaon Sabha, submitted
that petitioners' father was asami of plot in
question as such, no right will accrue to
petitioners' father or the petitioners after
expiry of five years. They further submitted
that impugned orders have been rightly
passed by the respondents as such, no
interference
is
required
against
the
impugned orders. They further submitted
that
entry
of
bhumidhar
with
nontransferable right was made in illegal
manner as such, the entry has been
expunged under the impugned orders,
which requires no interference by this
Court. They further submitted that instant
writ petition filed by the petitioners is liable
to be dismissed.

6. have considered the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.

7. There is no dispute about the
fact that allotment was made in favour of
petitioners' father in the year 1973 in
respect to land which is not covered by
Section 77 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006.
There is also no dispute about the fact that
plot in dispute was recorded as banjar
before making allotment in favour of
petitioners' father. There is also no dispute
about the fact that Nayb Tehsildar, while
passing the order for recording the name of
petitioners' father in respect to the plot in
question vide order dated 20.08.1975
ordered to record the name of petitioners'
father as sirdar, but under the impugned
order, the petitioners' father was ordered to
be recorded as asami of the plot in
question. There is also no dispute about the
fact that revisions filed by petitioners'
father have been also dismissed by
Additional
Commissioner/Board
of
Revenue.
8. In order to appreciate the
controversy involved in the matter the
perusal of Section 76 of U.P. Revenue Code
2006 will be relevant for perusal which is
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) every person who was a
bhumidhar with non-transferable rights
immediately
before
the
date
of
commencement of this Code;
(b) every person who is admitted as
a bhumidhar with non-transferable rights
on or after the said date by the Bhumi
Prabandhak Samiti to any land under or in
accordance with the provisions of this
Code;
(c) every person who is allotted any
land on or after the said date under the
provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan
Yajna Act, 1952;
(d) every person who is allotted any
land on or after the said date under the
provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition
of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960;
(dd) every person who was an
asami in possession of land not covered by
section 77 of this Code, immediately before
the date of the commencement of this Code
and had been recorded as such in class-3 of
the annual register (khatauni) of 1407
Fasli:
Provided that where the land in
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
1338 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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;
(e) every person who in any other
manner acquires on or after the said date, the
rights of such a bhumidhar under or in
accordance with the provisions of this Code,
or any other law for the time being in force.
(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 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 sub-sections
(1) and (2) or becomes bhumidhar with nontransferable rights after such commencement
shall become bhumidhar with transferable
rights after expiry of five years from his
becoming bhumidhar with non-transferable
rights.
(4)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in any other provisions of this
Code, if any person transfers land by sale
after becoming bhumidhar with transferable
rights under sub-section (2) or sub-section
(3), he shall not be eligible for lease of any
land vested in the Gram Panchayat or the
State Government or the surplus land
defined in the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960."

9. The perusal of Section 77 of the
U.P. Revenue Code 2006 will be also
relevant which is as under:-
[(1)]
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in this Code or any other law for
the time being in force; no person shall
acquire the rights of a bhumidhar in the
following land : -
(a) Khaliyan, manure pits, pasture
land or land normally used as burial or
cremation ground;
(b) land covered by water and used
for the purpose of growing singhara or
other produce;
(c) land situate in the bed of a river
and
used
for
casual or
occasional
cultivation;
(d) such tracts of shifting or
unstable
cultivation
which
the
State
Government may by notification specify;
(e) land declared by the State
Government to be intended or set apart for
taungya plantation and notified as such;
(f) grove land entrusted or deemed
to be entrusted to a [Gram Panchayat] or
any other local authority under Section 59;
(g) land included in sullage farm or
trenching ground entrusted or deemed to be
entrusted to a [Gram Panchayat] or any
other local authority under Section 59;
(h) had acquired or held for a
public purpose or a work of public utility;
(i) land covered by a pond, tank or
lake, or forming part of an embankment,
bandh or bhita; and
(j) any other land which the State
Government may, by notification, specify in
this behalf;
Explanation.
-
The
expression
'public purpose', in clause (h) shall include
:-
(i) land set apart for military
camping ground;
(ii) land included within railway or
canal boundaries;
(iii) land acquired and held by a
local authority for its own purposes;
4 All. Karamjeet Singh & Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors.
1339
(iv) land referred to in Section 29-C
of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953; or
(v) land reserved by a [Gram
Panchayat] for the purposes of public
utility :
[***]
[(2) Notwithstanding anything to
the contrary contained in other provisions
of this Code, where any land or part thereof
specified in sub-section (1) of this section
is, surrounded by or, in between, or on the
edges and necessary for public purpose, the
plot or plots of land purchased, acquired or
resumed for public purpose, the State
Government may change the class of such
public utility land, and if class of such
public utility land is changed, any other
land equivalent to or more than that of the
aforesaid public utility land, shall be
reserved for the same purpose in the same
or any nearby Gram Panchayat or local
authority, as the case may be or the State
Government may permit the exchange
thereof under Section 101 of this Code in
the manner prescribed:
Provided that the class of any
public utility land may be changed only in
exceptional cases on such terms and
conditions, as may be prescribed. The
reason for changing the class of public
utility land shall be recorded in writing.]
(3) The State Government, while
changing the class of the land or permitting
the exchange of the same under Section 101
of the Code, shall consider the location,
public utility and suitability of the land
proposed to be reserved or exchanged.
(4) If class of land is changed
under sub-section (2) of this section, the
Collector shall order the record of rights
(Khatauni) and the map to be corrected
accordingly.
Explanation.
-
The
expression
'public purpose', in sub-section (2) of this
section means, mutatis mutandis, 'the
public purpose' as defined in clause (za) of
Section 3 of Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
(Act No. 30 of 2013).]

10. The perusal of Section 76 (dd)
fully demonstrate that even an asami in
possession of the land entitled to be
recorded as bhumidhar, if, the land is not
covered under Section 77 of U.P. Revenue
Code 2006.

11. This Court in case reported in
(2018) 138 RD 68, Gangadeen vs. State of
U.P. and others has considered the scope of
Section 76 (1) (dd) of the U.P. Revenue
Code 2006. Paragraph No. 7 of the
judgment rendered in Gangadeen (supra)
will be relevant for perusal which is as
under:-

"7. As per clause (dd) of Subsection (1) of the Section 76, every person
who was an asami in possession of land not
covered by section 77 of the Code,
immediately
before
the
date
of
the
commencement of the Code and had been
recorded as such in class-3 of the annual
register (khatauni) of 1407 Fasli shall be
called a bhumidhar with non-transferable
rights and shall have all the rights and be
subject to all the liabilities conferred or
imposed upon such bhumidhar by or under
the Code. The land in question is not
covered by Section 77 of the Code.
Undisputedly, the name of the petitioner
was continued to be recorded in the annual
register (khatauni) till 1411 to 1416 Fasli.
Thus, it is undisputed that the name of the
petitioner was recorded in class-3 in the
annual register (khatauni) of 1407 Fasli
and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to
the benefit conferred under clause (dd) of
1340 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sub-section (1) of the Section 76 of the
Code. Therefore, both the impugned orders
deserve to be quashed and the case of the
petitioner deserves to be considered in the
light of the provisions as afore-quoted."

12. In the instant matter, the plot in
question was recorded as banjar before
making allotment in favour of petitioners'
father, which is not covered under Section 77
of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 as such, right
of the petitioners to be recorded as bhumidhar
with transferable right in respect to plot in
question cannot be rejected in any manner.

13. The perusal of the revenue entry
as well as the order passed by Nayb
Tehsildar/Sub-Divisional
Officer
fully
demonstrate that after grant of lease in favour
of petitioners' father in the year 1973,
petitioners' father was initially recorded as
sirdar and later on, he was recorded as
bhumidhar with non-transferable right. The
period of ten years from the date of giving
right to the petitioners' father as bhumidhar
with non-transferable right had already
completed as such, petitioners' father was
entitled to be recorded as bhumidhar with
transferable right, but authority has illegally
ordered to record the name of petitioners
father as asami (class-3 category) in respect
to the plot in question.

14. Considering the entire facts
and
circumstances
of
the
case,
the
impugned order dated 26.12.1989 passed
by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, order dated
08.05.1997
passed
by
Additional
Commissioner
and
the
order
dated
01.03.2017 passed by Board of Revenue
cannot be sustained in the eye of law as
such, the same are hereby set aside.

15. The writ petition stands
allowed.
16.

Respondent
No.
2/SubDivisional Magistrate, Chunar, District
Mirzapur, is directed to take immediate
steps for recording the name of the
petitioners as bhumidhar with transferable
right in respect to plot in question within
period of six weeks from the date of
production of certified copy of this order
before him as more than 48 years period
have passed from the date of making
allotment of the plot in question in favour
of petitioners' father.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 1340
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ-B No. 47402 of 2012

Kapil Ram Pandey & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Board of Revenue & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Anil Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Tarun Gaur(S.C.), Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh,
Sri S.S. Singh, Sri Shri Ram Pandey

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article
226-dispute
over
property
ownership based on two conflicting willsA registered will dated 19.02.2002 in
favor of the petitioners-An unregistered
will dated 02.03.2002 in favour of the
both the petitioners and respondent no.2The tehsildar ruled in favor of the
registered will rejecting the unregistered
will-The SDM dismissed the respondent
no.'s2
appeal-the
board
of
revenue
reversed
the
decision
allowing
the
unregistered will-The court upheld the
Tehsildar's original order favoring the
registered will and set aside the Board of