# Ramautar @ Ramavtar v. State of U.P & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 1027
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-09
- **Case number:** Writ - C No. 35385 of 2025
- **Bench:** Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramautar-ramavtar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54703
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

C.S.C.

Issue for consideration
The key issue primarily involves the erroneous
rejection of a Scheduled Caste bhumidhar's
application for land transfer permission under
the U.P. the U.P. Revenue Code.

Headnotes
(a)Civil matter-U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
(Section 98) & Rules,2016(Rule 99(8))-
1028 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Transfer by Schedule Caste BhumidharThe conjunction 'or' connecting Clauses
(a), (b), (c) and (d) of Rule 99(8) must be
read in its ordinary disjunctive sense,
indicating
alternative
conditionsFulfillment of anyone of the conditions
under Clauses (a), (b), (c), or (d) is
sufficient
for
the
Collector
to
grant
permission, and not all conditions are
required to coexist.

(b)Effect of the Explanation to Rule 99(8)-
the explanation clarifies that even if the
condition
under
Clause
(d)
(residual
holding not less than 1.26 hectares) is not
fulfilled, permission may still be granted if
any of the conditions enumerated in
Clauses (a) to (c) are fulfilled-This ensure
that inability to satisfy the quantitative
land
holding
condition
does
not
automatically preclude the Collector from
exercising discretion in deserving casesThe collector's exercise of discretion must
be
strictly
rooted
in
the
statutory
conditions under section 98 read with
Rule 99(8).

Held
The Court set aside the rejection orders passed
by
the
Collector,Bulandshahar
and
the
Additional Commissioner, Meerut-The rejection
orders were found to be mechanical and
arbitrary-The authorities failed to consider the
Tehsildar's report and the petitioner's medical
exigencies (suffering from chronic viral Hepatitis
B)-The Collector's finding that the petitioner
would become landless was contrary to the
material on record-The authorities erred in law
by relying on the fact that the land had been a
leased holding, and by improperly applying the
conditions under Rule 99(8), failing to recognize
that fulfillment of just one condition (like serious
disease under rule 99(8)(c)) is sufficient for
granting permission-Writ petition allowed.(Para
13 to 40) (E-6)

List of Acts
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 & U.P. Revenue Code,
Rules 2016

List of Keywords
Bhumidhar, U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, Section
98 & U.P. Revenue Code, Rules 2016, Rule
99(8), Scheduled Caste Bhumidhar, Transfer
Land, Collector's Permission, Interpretation of
'Or' Disjunctive conditions, Medical exigency,
Arbitrary
order,
Extraneous
consideration,
Remittance.

Case Arising From
CIVIL JURISDICTION- WRIT-C No.- 35385 of
2025
Ramautar @ Ramavtar Vs. State of U.P. &
4 Ors
 From
the
Judgment
and
Order
dated
09.10.2025 of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad.

Appearances for Parties
Adv. for Petitioner(s):-
Karan Prakash Tiwari
Adv. for Respondent(s):-
 CSC

Case law cited:
Sitaram Vs State of U.P. & Ors Smt. Omwati Vs
Collector District Pilibhit & 2 Ors. & Bajrangi Vs
State of U.P. & Ors., Smt. Krishna Shri Gupta Vs
State of U.P. & Ors, Fakir Mohd. Vs Sita Ram,
Guru Nanak Dev University Vs Sanjay Kumar
Katwal & Anr. G.P. Ceramics(p) Ltd. Vs
Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lord Halsbury in
Mersey Docks & Harbour Board Vs Hendersonreferred to.

## Text

10 All. Ramautar @ Ramavtar Vs. State of U.P..& Ors.
1027
in cases where re-issuance of the
passport is for a duration of one year.

27. In such circumstances, in our
view, passport applicants, if find disposal
of their applications delayed, should first
reply to the notice and if they find that their
application for passport has remained
pending for their implication in criminal
case, they should first apply for necessary
no objection/sanction/approval from court
concerned, police or criminal law court, as
the case may be. The passport office should
also not linger on their matters as there may
be urgency to a passport applicant. So the
concerned Regional Passport Officer in all
circumstances where passport cannot be
issued must inform the applicant regarding
it within a month of submission of passport
application and as soon as proper noobjection/sanction/approval is obtained and
submitted, should dispose of passport
application finally within a further period
of a month. The police in cases of
application submitted for passport must
submit its report within four weeks without
undue delay.

28. In the circumstances, in the
present
case
we
do
not
find
any
justification to issue further direction at this
stage to extend period of passport beyond
19.1.2026.
However,
a
person
like
petitioner can repeatedly apply for renewal
of passport soon after its expiry or even
before,
in
accordance
with
relevant
provisions of law as discussed above.
Hence, liberty rests with the petitioner as
above
and
in
the
event
petitioner
approaches the authority concerned for
extension of the validity of his passport just
before its expiry by following due
procedure prescribed in law, the respondent
no.2 shall consider the application as per
the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967 as
well as the Passport Rules, 1980 and
notifications issued by Government of
India through Ministry of External Affairs
from time to time and in the light of law as
discussed above.

29. With aforesaid observations
and directions, this petition stands disposed
of.

30.
Registrar
Compliance
is
directed to send a copy of this judgement to
all the Regional Passport Offices of the
State of Uttar Pradesh and also to the
Additional
Chief
Secretary
Home,
Government
of
U.P.
for
necessary
compliance.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 1027
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ - C No. 35385 of 2025

Ramautar @ Ramavtar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P..& Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Karan Prakash Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Issue for consideration
The key issue primarily involves the erroneous
rejection of a Scheduled Caste bhumidhar's
application for land transfer permission under
the U.P. the U.P. Revenue Code.

Headnotes
(a)Civil matter-U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
(Section 98) & Rules,2016(Rule 99(8))-
1028 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Transfer by Schedule Caste BhumidharThe conjunction 'or' connecting Clauses
(a), (b), (c) and (d) of Rule 99(8) must be
read in its ordinary disjunctive sense,
indicating
alternative
conditionsFulfillment of anyone of the conditions
under Clauses (a), (b), (c), or (d) is
sufficient
for
the
Collector
to
grant
permission, and not all conditions are
required to coexist.

(b)Effect of the Explanation to Rule 99(8)-
the explanation clarifies that even if the
condition
under
Clause
(d)
(residual
holding not less than 1.26 hectares) is not
fulfilled, permission may still be granted if
any of the conditions enumerated in
Clauses (a) to (c) are fulfilled-This ensure
that inability to satisfy the quantitative
land
holding
condition
does
not
automatically preclude the Collector from
exercising discretion in deserving casesThe collector's exercise of discretion must
be
strictly
rooted
in
the
statutory
conditions under section 98 read with
Rule 99(8).

Held
The Court set aside the rejection orders passed
by
the
Collector,Bulandshahar
and
the
Additional Commissioner, Meerut-The rejection
orders were found to be mechanical and
arbitrary-The authorities failed to consider the
Tehsildar's report and the petitioner's medical
exigencies (suffering from chronic viral Hepatitis
B)-The Collector's finding that the petitioner
would become landless was contrary to the
material on record-The authorities erred in law
by relying on the fact that the land had been a
leased holding, and by improperly applying the
conditions under Rule 99(8), failing to recognize
that fulfillment of just one condition (like serious
disease under rule 99(8)(c)) is sufficient for
granting permission-Writ petition allowed.(Para
13 to 40) (E-6)

List of Acts
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 & U.P. Revenue Code,
Rules 2016

List of Keywords
Bhumidhar, U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, Section
98 & U.P. Revenue Code, Rules 2016, Rule
99(8), Scheduled Caste Bhumidhar, Transfer
Land, Collector's Permission, Interpretation of
'Or' Disjunctive conditions, Medical exigency,
Arbitrary
order,
Extraneous
consideration,
Remittance.

Case Arising From
CIVIL JURISDICTION- WRIT-C No.- 35385 of
2025
Ramautar @ Ramavtar Vs. State of U.P. &
4 Ors
 From
the
Judgment
and
Order
dated
09.10.2025 of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad.

Appearances for Parties
Adv. for Petitioner(s):-
Karan Prakash Tiwari
Adv. for Respondent(s):-
 CSC

Case law cited:
Sitaram Vs State of U.P. & Ors Smt. Omwati Vs
Collector District Pilibhit & 2 Ors. & Bajrangi Vs
State of U.P. & Ors., Smt. Krishna Shri Gupta Vs
State of U.P. & Ors, Fakir Mohd. Vs Sita Ram,
Guru Nanak Dev University Vs Sanjay Kumar
Katwal & Anr. G.P. Ceramics(p) Ltd. Vs
Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lord Halsbury in
Mersey Docks & Harbour Board Vs Hendersonreferred to.

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

1. Heard Sri Karan Prakash Tiwari,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel appearing for the Staterespondents.

2. The present petition has been
filed seeking to assail the order dated
23.11.2024 passed by respondent no. 3, the
Collector/District Magistrate, Bulandshahr,
in Case No. 4481 of 2024 (Ramautar @
Ramavtar vs. State of U.P.), whereby the
petitioners
application
seeking
permission under Section 98(1) of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 20061 was rejected. The
10 All. Ramautar @ Ramavtar Vs. State of U.P..& Ors.
1029
subsequent order dated 03.07.2025 passed
by respondent no. 2, the Additional
Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, in
Revision No. 891 of 2025 (Ramautar @
Ramavtar vs. State of U.P.), whereby the
revision preferred against the aforesaid
order came to be dismissed is also
challenged.

3. As per the facts set out in the
writ petition, the petitioner claims to be a
tenure holder (bhumidhar with transferable
rights) of an agricultural land bearing
Khata No. 106, Khasra No. 2/2/4 area
0.482 hectare; Khata No. 101, Khasra No.
95/1 area 0.076 hectare; and Khata No.
101, Khasra No. 85/1 area 0.0210 hectare.
Out of the aforesaid parcels of land, land
bearing Khata No. 106, Khasra No. 2/2/4
area 0.4820 hectare was acquired by the
petitioner through a registered sale deed
executed on 09.03.2011. The erstwhile
owners of the land also belonged to the
Scheduled Caste category.

4. The petitioner asserts that he is
suffering from chronic viral Hepatitis B
disease. The cost of treatment being
substantial and recurring, the petitioner was
constrained to seek financial means to
continue his medical care. In view of the
financial exigencies arising from the
aforesaid medical condition, the petitioner
submitted an online application under
Section 98 of the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006, seeking permission to sell his
agricultural land bearing Khata No. 106,
Khasra No. 2/2/4 area 0.4820 hectare to a
person who does not belong to the
Scheduled Caste Category.

5. Pursuant to the said application,
a detailed enquiry report dated 05.11.2024
was prepared by the Tehsildar, Khurja,
who, upon due verification, recorded that
the petitioner was indeed suffering from
serious illness and recommended grant of
permission under Section 98 of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006. The Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Khurja, thereafter forwarded
the Tehsildars report along with his own
covering report dated 14.11.2024 to the
District Magistrate, Bulandshahr. However,
in his report, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate
took a contrary view, and recommended
refusal of permission on the ground that the
land proposed to be sold had earlier been a
leased holding.

6. The matter was placed before the
Collector/District Magistrate, Bulandshahr,
where it was registered as Case No. 4481 of
2024 (Ramautar @ Ramavtar vs. State of
U.P.). The Collector, by order dated
23.11.2024,
rejected
the
petitioners
application primarily on the ground that the
land proposed to be sold had earlier been a
leased holding and that the petitioner would
become landless upon completion of the
sale.

7. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner
preferred a revision under Section 210 of
the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the
Additional
Commissioner,
Meerut
Division, Meerut, which was registered as
Case No. 891 of 2025. The revisional
authority by
order
dated
03.07.2025
dismissed
the
revision,
essentially
reiterating the reasons as recorded by the
Collector.

8. Contention of the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner is that
the impugned orders suffer from manifest
error apparent on the face of record and are
wholly mechanical and arbitrary in nature.
It is submitted that the finding recorded by
the Collector regarding the petitioner
becoming landless is contrary to the
1030 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
material available on record, inasmuch as
the report dated 14.11.2024 does not state
any such fact. It is further urged that even
assuming the land to have been a leased
holding at some point of time, the same
could not, by itself, constitute a ground to
prohibit the petitioner from transferring his
self-acquired land purchased through a
registered sale deed from a bhumidhar with
transferable rights, provided that the
conditions stipulated under Rule 99(8) of
the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 20162 are
fulfilled.

9. It is submitted that despite the
report dated 14.11.2024 submitted by the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Khurja, wherein
a clear recommendation was made in
favour of the petitioner, the application
seeking permission for transfer of land
under Section 98 of the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 was rejected by the Collector
by order dated 23.11.2024. The said order
proceeds on the reasoning that the
petitioner, upon completion of the proposed
sale, would become a landless person, and
that the land in question being a leased
holding could not be transferred. The
revision filed by the petitioner against the
said order was dismissed by the learned
Commissioner vide order dated 03.07.2025,
merely reiterating the findings of the
Collector
without
independent
consideration of the material on record.

10. It is argued that both the
impugned orders dated 23.11.2024 and
03.07.2025
are
cursory,
mechanical,
arbitrary, and devoid of any application of
judicial mind, inasmuch as both the
authorities have failed to consider the
recommendation of the Tehsildar and the
medical exigencies of the petitioner. The
orders suffer from manifest error apparent
on the face of the record, as the authorities
below have faltered both on questions of
fact and law.

11. Counsel for the petitioner has
urged that in terms of the Explanation
appended to sub-rule (8) of Rule 99 of
Rules, 20163, if the condition enumerated
in Clause (d) is not fulfilled but any of
other conditions enumerated in Clauses (a)
to (c) are fulfilled, permission can be
granted.

12. Learned counsel asserts that the
application had been made by stating that
the petitioner was suffering from a serious
disease and, therefore, irrespective of nonfulfillment of the condition in Clause (d),
the permission ought to have been granted.
In this regard, reliance has been placed on
the decisions of this Court in Sitaram vs.
State of U.P. and Others4, Smt. Omwati
Vs. Collector District Pilibhit And 2
Others5and Bajrangi vs. State of U.P.
and Others6.
13. In particular, attention of this
Court is invited to the decision in the case
of Bajrangi (supra), wherein the scope and
intent of Section 98 of the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 and Rule 99(8) of the U.P.
Revenue
Code
Rules,
2016
were
elaborately
considered.
Referring
to
Maxwell
on
The
Interpretation
of
Statutes7 and the decisions in, Smt.
Krishna Shri Gupta v. State of U.P. and
Others8, Fakir Mohd. v. Sita Ram9,
Guru Nanak Dev University vs. Sanjay
Kumar Katwal and another10 G.P.
Ceramics (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner11,
Trade
Tax,
Uttar
Pradesh
Lord
Halsbury in Mersey Docks and Harbour
Board vs. Henderson12, it was observed
as follows:

"23. ...it may be noticed that
in terms of sub rule (8) of Rule 99, the
10 All. Ramautar @ Ramavtar Vs. State of U.P..& Ors.
1031
Collector
is
required
to
record
his
satisfaction with regard to the fulfillment of
conditions contained under Clauses (a), (b),
(c), (d) and (e). It may further be noticed
that Clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d), are
connected, by the word or, and Clause
(e) is connected by using the word and.

24. The conjunctions and
and or are two of the elemental words
in
the
English
Language
and
combines items
while
or
creates
alternatives.

 25.
In
Maxwell
on
The
Interpretation of Statutes, it has been
observed as follows:

 in ordinary usage, and is
conjunctive and or disjunctive.

 26. It was held by this Court in
Smt. Krishna Shri Gupta v. State of U.P.
and Others that in the context of statutory
interpretation,
the
word
or
has
generally
been
construed
as
being
disjunctive. The relevant observations
made in the judgment are as follows:

 25. In logic, mathematics and in
the context of statutory interpretation, the
word or has generally been construed
as being disjunctive i.e. connective that
marks alternatives. It has been used to
connect
words,
phrases
or
classes
representing alternatives.

 27. In Fakir Mohd. v. Sita Ram, it
was held that the word or is normally
disjunctive. The use of the word or in a
statute manifests the legislative intent of
the alternatives prescribed under law.

 28. In the case of Guru Nanak
Dev University vs. Sanjay Kumar Katwal
and Another, it was held that the use of
or between two qualifications conveyed
a disjunctive sense indicating alternatives
and
possession
of
either
of
the
qualifications
would
be
held
to
be
sufficient. It was reiterated that the word
or is normally used in the disjunctive
sense
unless
the
context
warrants
otherwise.

 29. The interpretation of the word
or in the context of an exemption
notification issued under the U.P. Trade
Tax Act, 1948 came up for consideration in
the case of G.P. Ceramics (P) Ltd. Vs.
Commissioner, Trade Tax, Uttar Pradesh,
and it was held that the three contingencies
provided for under the notification which
were connected by the word or, were
disjunctive in nature.

 30. In this regard, reference may
also be had to the observations made by
Lord Halsbury in Mersey Docks and
Harbour Board Vs. Henderson, which are
as follows : -

 " I know no authority for such a
proceeding unless the context makes the
necessary meaning of or and as in
some instances it does; but I believe it is
wholly unexampled so to read it when
doing so will upon one construction
entirely alter the meaning of the sentence
unless some other part of the same statute
or the clear intention of it requires that to
be done."

 31. It would therefore be seen
that the meaning of the word or as a
tool of statutory construction has been
subject matter of consideration in a number
of decisions, and it has been consistently
held that the word or is normally
disjunctive and its use in a statute manifests
1032 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the legislative intent of the alternatives
prescribed under law.
 32. In the instant case the use of
the word or as a connective between
Clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d), is indicative of
the disjunctive sense marking the four
alternative conditions. It would follow as a
consequence that in the event either of the
conditions under Clauses (a), (b), (c) or (d)
are fulfilled, the same would have to be
held
sufficient
for
the
purposes
of
recording of satisfaction by the Collector
for grant of approval.

 33. The condition under Clause
(d), which is in the nature of an injunctive
clause, in terms whereof it is provided that
area of land held by the applicant on the
date of the application, should not after
transfer, reduce to less than 1.26 hectares,
has been clarified by the explanation which
is appended to sub rule (8).

 34. The intent, purpose and effect
of an Explanation appended to a statutory
provision was considered in S. Sundaram
Pillai Vs. V.R. Pattabiraman and others13.
It was held that the Explanation is meant to
explain or clarify certain ambiguities in the
provision. Referring to earlier decisions in
Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing
Co. of India Ltd. v. CTO14, Bihta
Cooperative Development Cane Marketing
Union Ltd. v. Bank of Bihar15, Hiralal
Rattanlal Vs. State of U.P.16, Dattatraya
Govind Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra17
and also the principles laid down in Sarathi
in Interpretation of Statutes18, Swarup in
Legislation and Interpretation19 and Bindra
in Interpretation of Statutes20, the object of
an Explanation to a statutory provision was
elaborated, and it was observed as follows:

 "53. Thus, from a conspectus of
the authorities referred to above, it is
manifest that the object of an Explanation
to a statutory provision is-

 (a) to explain the meaning and
intendment of the Act itself,

 (b) where there is any obscurity
or vagueness in the main enactment, to
clarify the same so as to make it consistent
with the dominant object which it seems to
subserve,

 (c) to provide an additional
support to the dominant object of the Act in
order
to
make
it
meaningful
and
purposeful,

 (d) an Explanation cannot in any
way interfere with or change the enactment
or any part thereof but where some gap is
left which is relevant for the purpose of the
Explanation, in order to suppress the
mischief and advance the object of the Act
it can help or assist the Court in
interpreting the true purport and intendment
of the enactment, and

 (e) it cannot, however, take away
a statutory right with which any person
under a statute has been clothed or set at
naught the working of an Act by becoming
an hindrance in the interpretation of the
same.
 35. The effect and intendment of
an explanation is to be determined by its
own words. In certain cases an explanation
may be introduced ex abundanti cautela i.e.
by way of abundant caution in order to
clear any possible ambiguities surrounding
the meaning of the statutory provision and
to place what the legislature considers to be
the true meaning beyond controversy or
doubt.
 36. The Explanation appended to
sub rule (8) provides that if the condition
10 All. Ramautar @ Ramavtar Vs. State of U.P..& Ors.
1033
enumerated in Clause (d) of the sub rule is
not fulfilled but any of the conditions
enumerated in Clauses (a) to (c) of the sub
rule are fulfilled, the permission under
Section 98(1) may be granted.

 37. The import of the Explanation
would therefore be that even in a case
where the area of land held by the applicant
on the date of application, reduces to less
than 1.26 hectares after the transfer,
permission may still be granted in the event
either of the conditions specified in Clauses
(a) to (c) is fulfilled.

 38. The use of or between
Clauses (a) to (d) of sub rule (8), as noticed
earlier,
conveys
a
disjunctive
sense
indicating alternatives and fulfillment of
the conditions specified in either of the
clauses would be a sufficient ground on the
basis of which permission under Section
98(1) may be granted.

 39. It would be relevant to
underscore that while fulfillment of either
of the conditions specified under Clauses
(a)
to
(d),
aforesaid,
would
be
sufficient, none of these conditions can
be held to be necessary. To put it in
other words, in a case where one of the
conditions under Clauses (a) to (d) are
fulfilled, non-fulfillment of any other
condition would be of no consequence.
 40. In logic and mathematics,
necessity and sufficiency are terms
used
to
describe
a
conditional
or
implicational relationship between two
statements. In general, a necessary
condition is one that must be present in
order for the other condition to occur, while
a sufficient condition is one that
produces the said condition.
 41. It can therefore be said that a
necessary condition is a condition that
must be present for an event to occur
whereas a sufficient condition is a
condition or set of conditions that will
produce the event.

 42. A sufficient condition
would on its own produce the result but its
absence cannot lead to an inference that the
result would not be produced. A causal
fallacy occurs when one assumes that a
sufficient condition is necessary for the
event to occur.

 43. Applying the aforestated
principles, in the context of sub rule (8), the
conditions specified in each of the Clauses
(a) to (d), would have to be held sufficient,
though neither of them is necessary.

 44. The Explanation appended to
sub rule (8) seeks to clarify the position
that the non-fulfillment of the condition
with regard to the requirement that area of
land held by the applicant consequent to the
transfer does not reduce to less than 1.26
hectares, as provided under Clause (d),
would not create a bar in the grant of
permission under Section 98(1), in the
event any of the conditions enumerated in
Clauses (a) to (c) is fulfilled."

14.
Learned
Additional
Chief
Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of
the State-respondents has fairly stated that
the legal proposition relied upon by the
learned counsel for the petitioner is not in
dispute.

15. It would be relevant to notice
that Section 98 of the Code mandates that
no bhumidhar belonging to a scheduled
caste shall have the right to transfer, by
way of sale, gift, mortgage or lease any
land to a person not belonging to a
scheduled caste except with the previous
1034 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
permission of the Collector in writing. The
previous permission of the Collector is
therefore, a condition precedent before any
bhumidhar of scheduled caste can seek to
transfer his land to a person not belonging
to a scheduled caste. In the absence of such
permission having been obtained, the
transfer would be rendered void as per
Section 104, and would be subject to the
consequences provided under Section 105.

16. The proviso to Section 98
enumerates the conditions under which
permission
may
be
granted
by
the
Collector, and the same are as follows:

 (i) the bhumidhar belonging to a
scheduled caste has no surviving heir
specified in clause (a) of sub- Section (2) of
Section 108 or clause (a) of Section 110, as
the case may be; or

 (ii) the bhumidhar belonging to a
scheduled caste has settled or is ordinarily
residing in the district other than that in
which the land proposed to be transferred is
situate or in any other State for the purpose
of any service or any trade, occupation,
profession or business; or

 (iii) the Collector is, for the
reasons prescribed, satisfied that it is
necessary to grant the permission for
transfer of land.

17. The reasons prescribed, as
referred to under clause (c) of the proviso
to Section 98(1), upon which the Collector
is to record its satisfaction that it is
necessary to grant permission for transfer
of the land, are specified under sub-rule (8)
of Rule 99 of the Rules, 2016, and the same
are as follows:

 (i) the conditions of clause (a) or
clause (b) of subSection (1) of Section 98
are fulfilled; or

 (ii) the tenure holder or any
member of his family is suffering from any
fatal disease regarding which the certificate
has been issued by any physician or
surgeon specialist in the disease concerned
and the permission for transfer is necessary
to meet out the expenses for the treatment
of such disease; or

 (iii) the applicant is seeking
permission under Section 98(1) of the Code
for the proposed transfer to purchase any
other land from the consideration of such
proposed transfer and the facts in this
regard in the application are supported with
certified copy of a registered agreement to
sell in favour of the applicant; or

 (iv) the area of land held by the
applicant on the date of application does
not, after such transfer, reduce to less than
1.26 hectares, and

 (v) if the permission is being
sought for transfer by sale the consideration
for the transfer of the land is not below the
amount calculated as per the circle rate
fixed by the Collector;

18. The permission to be granted
for transfer to a bhumidhar belonging to a
scheduled caste under Section 99 would
have to be based on the following
conditions :

 (i) in the absence of surviving
heir specified in clause (a) of sub-Section
(2) of Section 108 or clause (a) of Section
110;
10 All. Ramautar @ Ramavtar Vs. State of U.P..& Ors.
1035
 (ii) the transferor has settled or is
ordinarily residing in the district other than
that in which the land proposed to be
transferred is situate or in any other State
for the purpose of any service or any trade,
occupation, profession or business;

 (iii) for the reasons prescribed
under the Rules, i.e.

 (a) the tenure holder or any
member of his family is suffering from any
fatal disease; or

 (b) the applicant is seeking
permission for the proposed transfer to
purchase
any
other
land
from
the
consideration of such proposed transfer; or

 (c) the area of land held by the
applicant on the date of application does
not, after such transfer, reduce to less than
1.26 hectares, and

 (d) if the permission is being
sought for transfer by sale the consideration
is not below the amount calculated as per
the circle rate fixed by the Collector.

19. The Explanation to Rule 99
clarifies that in a situation where any
condition enumerated in clause (a) to (c) of
sub-rule (8) of Rule 99 is fulfilled,
permission may be granted even if the
holding of the bhumidhar (transferor) after
such transfer reduces to less than 1.26
hectares.

20. The procedure for obtaining
permission for transfer under Section 98 is
provided for under Rule 99 of the Rules,
2016 and as per sub-rule (3) thereof an
application seeking permission to transfer
land by way of sale or gift or for
permission to bequeath land by will, as the
case may be, is to be made by a bhumidhar
with transferable rights belonging to
scheduled caste to the Collector in RC-
Form 27. Upon receipt of such an
application, the Collector under sub-rule
(4) shall make an enquiry as he may, in the
circumstances of the case deem necessary.
For the purpose he may depute an officer
not below the rank of Naib Tehsildar for:
(a) verification of the facts stated in the
application;
and
(b)
reporting
the
circumstances in which permission for
transfer is sought. Thereafter, under subrule (5), the inquiry officer shall submit the
report in duplicate within a period of 15
days from the date of receiving the order of
such enquiry. The copy of the report is to
be supplied to the applicant under sub-rule
(6) whereupon the applicant may file
objections against the report within a
period of seven days and thereafter the
Collector upon being satisfied that any of
the conditions under sub-rules (8)(a) to (d),
and sub-rule (8)(e) of Rule 99, are fulfilled,
may grant permission after recording
reasons.

21. In a case where the application
has been made as per the prescribed
procedure and upon due enquiry as
provided under the Rules, 2016 either of
the aforestated conditions are held to be
satisfied, the permission is required to be
granted for transfer under Section 98.

22.
The
aforementioned
legal
position with regard to the interpretation of
the provisions contained under Section 98
of the Code, 2006 and Rule 99 of the Rules,
2016 which relate to the restrictions on
transfer by bhumidhars belonging to a
Scheduled Caste and the manner in which
permission may be granted for the purpose
by the Collector, were subject matter of
consideration in the decisions of this Court
1036 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in Sitaram (supra) and Smt. Omwati
(supra) which have been relied upon by
counsel for both the parties.

23. Section 98 of the Code, 2006
can thus be seen to regulate the transfer of
land
by
bhumidhars
belonging
to
Scheduled
Castes,
requiring
previous
written permission from the Collector for
any sale, gift, mortgage, or lease to persons
who are not members of the Scheduled
Castes. In the absence of such permission,
any transfer becomes void under Section
104 and is subject to further consequences
under Section 105.

24. The restriction imposed under
Section 98 is mandatory by providing that a
bhumidhar belonging to scheduled caste
cannot transfer land to a non-scheduled
caste except with the Collectors prior
permission in writing. The law thus aims to
protect the landholding of vulnerable
sections and prevent distress sales.

25. In Sitaram (supra), it was held
that the exercise of discretion by the
Collector must be rooted strictly in relevant
statutory conditions and considerations set
out in Section 98 read with Rule 99(8). Any
consideration
outside
these
statutory
conditions cannot be a valid ground for
permission
or
refusal.
Reference
to
irrelevant factors is impermissible and
renders the decision ultra vires and void.
The Collector must record findings only on
the legally specified factors, and decisions
influenced by extraneous considerations
would not withstand judicial scrutiny.

26. In Bajrangi (supra) similar
issues regarding the permission to transfer
land
by
a
bhumidhar
belonging
to
scheduled caste were addressed. The
judgment reiterated that the statutory
scheme must be scrupulously followed;
discretionary powers may only be exercised
within the scope of Section 98 and relevant
rules. Any deviation or reliance on
irrelevant factors, not specified under the
proviso or Rule 99(8), would render the
order invalid and liable to be set aside. It
was emphasized that the Collector when
considering permission for land transfer
under Section 98, was required to apply
only the statutorily enumerated conditions
under Rule 99(8) and that any extraneous
requirement
or
condition
was
impermissible.

27. The Explanation to Rule 99(8)
of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules,
2016 is anchored in balancing protection to
the vulnerable class of landholders with
necessary flexibility
in
land
transfer
transactions.

28. The primary legislative intent
behind Section 98 and Rule 99(8) is to
safeguard scheduled caste bhumidhars from
losing their land through distress sales or
unjust transfers, thus securing social and
economic
stability
for
marginalized
communities. The Explanation reinforces
this protective purpose by ensuring that
transfers are controlled and permissible
only under specific enumerated conditions.

29. While keeping the need for
protection as paramount, the Explanation
recognizes
practical
realitiessuch
as
changing family circumstances or health
conditionsthat might require transfers
causing landholdings to fall below the
minimum prescribed area. By allowing
permission if any one of the other statutory
conditions is met despite the area condition
not being fulfilled, the Explanation injects
reasonable flexibility. This prevents rigidity
that may result in undue hardship.
10 All. Ramautar @ Ramavtar Vs. State of U.P..& Ors.
1037
30. The Explanation embodies the
principle that administrative discretion in
the form of Collectors permission must
be exercised within a clear statutory
framework with precise criteria to avoid
arbitrariness and overreach. It seeks to
uphold the rule of law by limiting
discretion to specified grounds, thereby
promoting transparency, predictability, and
accountability in land transfer permissions.

31. An attempt has been made to
protect
the
historically
disadvantaged
groups while not unduly restricting their
ability to manage property. It aims for
equitable
treatment
where
protections
coexist with reasonable exceptions to
facilitate genuine needs. In essence, the
Explanation to Rule 99(8) is aimed at
protecting scheduled caste landholdings
from exploitation while allowing pragmatic
exceptions under clearly defined conditions
to ensure fairness and justice.

32. The law laid down in case of
Bajrangi (supra) makes it clear that in
terms of the Explanation appended to subrule (a) if the condition enumerated in
Clause (d) of sub-rule is not fulfilled but
any of the conditions enumerated in Clause
(a) to (c) of the sub-rule are fulfilled,
permission under Section 98(1) may be
granted.

33. The material brought on record
in the present case indicates that the
application submitted by the petitioner
seeking permission under Section 98(1) of
the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, was
accompanied by the requisite documents
and was duly supported by the report of the
Sub-Divisional
Magistrate,
dated
14.11.2024, recommending the grant of
permission. The said report does not make
any observation indicating that, upon
completion of the proposed sale, the
petitioner would be rendered landless or
that the remaining area of land held by him
would fall below the threshold prescribed
under Rule 99(8)(d) of the Rules, 2016.

34. Notwithstanding the aforesaid,
the Collector proceeded to reject the
petitioners application by observing that
the proposed sale would result in the
petitioner becoming landless, a finding
which is ex facie contrary to the record and
unsupported by any factual material. The
Commissioner,
while
considering
the
revision, has mechanically reiterated the
reasoning of the Collector without any
independent application of mind. Both
orders thus suffer from a manifest error
apparent on the face of the record.

35. The Collector, while exercising
jurisdiction under Section 98(1), is required
to
record
satisfaction
regarding
the
fulfillment of any of the conditions
enumerated in clauses (a) to (e) of sub-rule
(8) of Rule 99. The conjunction 'or'
connecting clauses (a) to (d) conveys a
disjunctive
sense,
indicating
that
fulfillment of any one of the conditions
would suffice for the purpose of granting
permission. The legislative intent is,
therefore, clear that the existence of one
qualifying circumstance is adequate to
justify the grant of permission, and not all
the conditions are required to coexist.

36. The Explanation appended to
sub-rule (8) of Rule 99 further clarifies that
even where the condition under clause (d)
relating to the holding of not less than 1.26
hectares of land after transfer is not
satisfied, permission may still be granted if
any of the conditions under clauses (a) to
(c) are fulfilled. The object of the
Explanation is to remove any ambiguity by
1038 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ensuring that the inability to satisfy the
quantitative condition of residual holding
does
not
automatically
preclude
the
Collector from exercising his discretion in
deserving cases.

37. The interpretation of the
conjunction or, as enunciated in the
decisions G.P. Ceramics (P) Ltd., Guru
Nanak Dev University and Smt. Krishna
Shri Gupta, (supra) makes it abundantly
clear that 'or' is to be read in its ordinary
disjunctive sense, except where the context
unambiguously warrants a conjunctive
construction. No such exception arises in
the present context. Accordingly, the
conditions under clauses (a) to (d) of subrule (8) must be treated as alternative, not
cumulative.

38.
Applying
the
aforesaid
principles, it is evident that the petitioners
case was fully covered under clause (c) of
sub-rule (8) inasmuch as he sought
permission to transfer his land for the
purpose of purchasing another parcel of
land, as duly supported by the documentary
evidence. Once such condition stood
satisfied,
the
question
of
examining
whether the residual holding after transfer
was less than 1.26 hectares became
irrelevant in view of the Explanation
appended to Rule 99(8).

39. Having regard to the aforesaid,
the orders dated 23.11.2024 passed by the
respondent no.3 in Case No. 4481 of 2024
(Ramautar @ Ramavtar vs. State of U.P.)
and dated 03.07.2025 passed by the
respondent no.2 in Case No. 891 of 2025
(Ramautar @ Ramavtar vs. State of U.P.)
are set aside, and the matter is remitted
back to respondent no.3 for passing a fresh
order after recording due consideration to
the application of the petitioner in view of
the observations made in this judgment.

40. The writ petition is allowed to
the extent, as indicated above.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 1038
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. SWARUPAMA
CHATURVEDI, J.

Writ - C No. 37053 of 2025

Marufa Begum ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Anoop Kumar Sharma, Vikas Rastogi

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Anand Krishna Narayana, C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the bank was
justified in freezing the bank account of the
petitioner, and whether the continued freezing
of the account is justified in the facts of the
present case, especially when the petitioner had
taken steps for having a new salary account
with another bank, after the account in question
got freezed.

Headnotes
Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 -
S. 106 (Corresponding to S. 102 Cr.P.C.) -
Freezing of bank account - legality of
action - Bank account of petitioner freezed
on
instruction
of
the
Cyber
Crime
Department,
Anand,
Gujarat
-
investigation
regarding
transaction
alleged
to
have
originated
from
an
account unknown to the petitioner - Police
empowered to seize property (including