# Shivdhari v. State of U.P.& Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 1036
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-09
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 130 of 2026
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shivdhari-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53811
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

1036 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

26. The mutation proceedings being of a summary nature drawn on the basis of possession do
not decide any question of title and the orders passed in such proceedings do not come in the way
of a person in getting his rights adjudicated in a regular suit. It is for this reason that it has
consistently been held that such petitions are not to be entertained in exercise of powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The consistent legal position with regard to the nature of
mutation proceedings, as has been held in the previous decisions, may be stated as follows :-

(i) mutation proceedings are summary in nature wherein title of the parties over the land
involved is not decided;

(ii) mutation order or revenue entries are only for the fiscal purposes to enable the State
to collect revenue from the person recorded;

(iii) they neither extinguish nor create title;

(iv) mutation in revenue records does not have any presumptive value on the title and no
ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries;

(v) the order of mutation does not in any way effect the title of the parties over the land in
dispute; and

(vi) such orders or entries are not documents of title and are subject to decision of the
competent court.

27. Accordingly, this Court finds that the petition is bereft of merits and is accordingly
dismissed.

28. However, we observe that in case the petitioner wishes to seek declaration with regard to
his right, title or interest in the disputed property, it shall be open for him to approach the court of
competent jurisdiction for seeking appropriate reliefs in this regard.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 1036
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ C No. 130 of 2026

Shivdhari ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P.& Ors. ...Respondents

Issue(s) for consideration
1 All. Shivdhari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1037
 Whether not raising construction within three years (the prescribed time) can automatically lead to
cancellation of allotment?

Headnotes
A. Property Law/Land Law - U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016: Section 66, Rule 64 - Contingencies
for invoking the provisions of Section 66(1) for cancellation of allotment - The first being that
the Collector may take cognizance on his own motion and secondly he can initiate proceedings
on an application by a person who is aggrieved by the allotment. The Collector on his own motion
can, at any time, initiate proceedings for cancellation of the allottment within a reasonable time but any
person, who is aggrieved by the allotment, is bound to move such an application within three years of the
date of allotment.

In the present case, the petitioner has gone at length to indicate that he is an aggrieved person in as much as
the private respondents started construction on the portion of the allotted land on which the petitioner also
claims his rights and, therefore, he claims himself to be an aggrieved person. Accordingly, in such a situation
the three years limitation prescribed u/s 66(2) would come into operation and such application by an
aggrieved person can be moved only within three years from the date of allotment. (Para 14)

B. Rule 64(2)(b) - In case an allottee fails to comply with the terms and conditions w.r.t. construction of
house within the time prescribed, the Collector may cancel the allotment in accordance with Section 66. (Para
15)

The issue pertaining to allotment of patta sites is a beneficial piece of legislation and should be
interpreted in a liberal manner so as to fulfill the objects sought to be achieved rather than to
curtail rights of the person for whom the allotment has been made. (Para 16)

With regard to the persons belonging to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes the period of limitation has
been done away with which fact also goes to show that the time period for constructing a house on patta
sites is not mandatory condition. This Court is also of the considered view that merely because a person has
not raised construction within three years can automatically lead to cancellation of his allotment. (Para 17)

C. To ensure effectiveness of the provision for allotment of residential sites and to ensure its
compliance it is undoubtedly necessary that the land should be used for the purpose of
construction of a house within a reasonable time.

In case, for any reason, the allottee has not been able to construct house, notice should certainly
be given to him requiring him to construct his house within the time prescribed and even if within
the time prescribed he or she does not construct house it would certainly be open for the Collector to invoke
the powers under Sub clause 2 (b) of Rule 64 and cancel the allotment. (Para 18)

No merit is found in the challenge made to the impugned orders rejecting his claim for cancellation for
allotment after a period of three years which was highly belated and the application was rightly rejected by
both the authorities below. (Para 19)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

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

List of Keywords
 revenue, allotment, application, house, residential, cancellation, reasonable time.

Appearances for Parties
1038 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
For Petitioner(s): Hari Shanker Tewari, Ajay Tiwari
For Respondent(s): C.S.C., Mohan Singh

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1- Heard Sri H. S. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel on
behalf of respondent No.s 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Govind Kumar Chaurasiya holding brief of Sri Mohan
Singh on behalf of for opposite party No.4.

2- In light of the proposed order notice to private respondent No.5 is dispensed with.

3- It has been submitted that a housing lease was granted in favour of predecessor-in-interest
of private respondent No.5 which was duly approved on 4.12.1991. The petitioner moved a
complaint under Section 66 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules
of 2016) alleging that the private respondent has not constructed the house within three years of the
grant of the said lease and, therefore, by operation of law as provided under Rule 64 of the Rules of
2016, the lease ought to be cancelled.

4- Notices were issued to the private respondents who participated in the said proceedings and
also filed their objections. In the said objections the complaint was vehemently opposed. It was
stated that the complainant is an extremely wealthy person who has 12 rooms' house constructed on
gata No.720 and has residential land near Nagar Panchayat Lambhuwa and even in New Delhi has
three storyed house in Sangam Vihar. Apart from the above, he has a housing plot in Sonia Vihar
and does not come into the category of eligible person to be granted a lease,who belongs to other
backward class category. It was further stated that the housing leased was allotted in favour of Ram
Harakh, the father of respondent No.5 and similar lease was also granted in favour of Ram Ajore,
who is father of the complainant and after his death the petitioner is in occupation of the said land.
It is further stated that even two brothers of the petitioner, namely Ramdhari and Tilakdhari had
also been allotted the housing lease along with father of the petitioner and further submitted that
entire proceedings were conducted in accordance with law after due publication and there is no
infirmity in the same. It was further stated that the complaint was highly belated and barred by the
provisions of Section 66 (2) of the Rules of 2016 and accordingly the same be rejected.

5- Collector, Sultanpur duly considered the rival contentions and after considering the entire
factual aspects of the matter was of the view that that the complaint submitted by the petitioner was
highly time barred and beyond the limitation prescribed for in Section 66 (2) of the Rules of 2016
in as much as the same was filed after 32 years of the date when the lease was executed and hence
proceeded to reject the complaint only on the ground of expiry of the period of limitation
prescribed therein.

6- Thereafter, against the order of Collector, Sultanpur dated 19.4.2024 the petitioner had
preferred a revision before Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya. The
revisional authority also after considering the objections of the petitioner found that there was no
infirmity in the order of the Collector in rejecting the complaint on the ground of limitation and,
therefore, also rejected the revision preferred by the petitioner.
1 All. Shivdhari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1039

7- Before this Court, it has been contended by the petitioner that undoubtedly three years'
period is prescribed for filing a complaint against a lease from the date of its allotment but submits
that as per rule 64 of the Rules of 2016 an allottee has to complete the house within three years
from the date of delivery of possession and consequences of the same are provided in sub clause (b)
of Rule 64 (2) which provides that in case the allottee fails to comply the terms and conditions of
the rules then the Collector may cancel the allotment under Section 66 of the said Rules.
Accordingly, it was stated that the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 66 (2) will not
apply to the complaint pertaining to non construction of a house within the period prescribed and
accordingly submits that both the authorities below have not considered the case of the petitioner in
this regard and, therefore, prayed for allowing the writ petition and setting aside both the impugned
orders.

8- Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, have opposed the writ petition. It is
submitted on their behalf that period of limitation for challenging the validity of any allotment is
prescribed under Sub clause 2 of Section 66 which is three years from the date of its allotment. He
further submits that the conditions for allotment are provided for under Section 64 of sub section 2
which provides that an allottee shall complete the house and shall begin to reside in it within a
period of three years from the date of delivery of possession and if the allottee fails to comply with
the said terms and conditions the Collector may cancel the allotment in accordance with Section 66.
It is further submitted that sub clause (b) of Rule 64 (2) specifically provides that in case a person
belongs to scheduled caste/scheduled tribe category then the time limit for completing the house
shall not apply.

9- It is on a conjoint reading of aforesaid Sections that it was submitted that firstly in clause
(b) it has been specifically stated that in case a person fails to comply the conditions of
constructions of a house, the Collector may cancel the allotment and, therefore, submits that the
condition is directory and not mandatory. He further submits that even in the same provision time
limitation has not been prescribed in case a persons belonging to scheduled caste / scheduled tribe
category and, therefore, it was not the intention of the legislature to make the time period a
mandatory condition subsequent to which the allotment could have been cancelled. It is further
submitted that allotment is made for house construction to such persons who are landless
agricultural laborers belonging to very poor classes of rural citizenry and the condition for
construction within the time limit may prove to be fatal which may defeat the very purpose for
which the provision has been made. Such a beneficial piece of legislation may not be read in
isolation which may prove to be contrary to the interests of such persons for the benefit of whom
the same has been framed. Accordingly, in the aforesaid circumstances prayed for dismissal of the
writ petition.

10- This Court has considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the record.

11- The order of Collector, Sultanpur dated 19.4.2024 as well as order dated 6.12.2025 passed
by Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya falls for consideration in the
present petition. Both the authorities have rejected the complaint preferred at the behest of the
petitioner on the ground that the same was filed after thirty two years of the grant of the lease and
according to Section 66 (2) of U.P. Revenue Code, no such application can be entertained after
1040 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
expiry of the period of three years from the date of allotment and consequently has rejected the
application of the petitioner on the ground of delay.

12- We have considered the argument of the petitioner that under Rule 64 of U.P. Revenue
Code, a person has to construct house within a period of three years and consequence of the
aforesaid time limit is also prescribed under Section 64 (2) where in case house is not constructed
within such time limit the lease may be canceled. It was vehemently submitted on behalf of the
petitioner that the word 'may' used in clause 2 of Rule 64 is mandatory and not directory ad
accordingly wherever house is snot constructed within three years such a lease is liable to be
cancelled.

13- We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the
petitioner but are unable to accept the same. Section 64 of U.P. Revenue Code provides for
allotment of patta sites and we find that the persons who are working as agricultural labourers or
village artisans and belong to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes or other backward class
category or general category persons living below poverty line are granted preference for allotment
of such site. A detailed procedure has also been prescribed with regard to identification of such
persons and subsequently allottemt of land belonging to gaon sabha. To prevent any misuse of
aforesaid powers of allotment, Section 66 provides for inquiry into the irregular allotment of patta
sites which may be conducted by Collector on his own motion or on an application of any person
aggrieved by the allotment of land made under Section 64 and if the Collector is satisfied that the
allotment is irregular he may cancel the allotment. In sub clause 2 of Section 66 it is provided that
no application shall be entertained which have been made after expiry of three years from the date
of allotment.

14- Considering the aforesaid provisions, this Court is of the considered view that two
contingencies for invoking the provisions of Section 66 (1) for cancellation of allotment have been
provided. The first being that the Collector may take cognizance on his own motion and secondly
he can initiate proceedings on an application by a person who is aggrieved by the allotment. Sub
clause 2 of Section 66 provides that "No application under sub-section (1) shall be entertained,"
meaning thereby that the Collector on his own motion can, at any time, initiate proceedings for
cancellation of the allottment within a reasonable time but any person, who is aggrieved by the
allotment, is bound to move such an application within three years of the date of allotment. In the
present case, the petitioner has gone at length to indicate that he is an aggrieved person in as much
as the private respondents started construction on the portion of the allotted land on which the
petitioner also claims his rights and, therefore, he claims himself to be an aggrieved person.
Accordingly, in such a situation the three years limitation prescribed under Section 66 (2) would
come into operation and such application by an aggrieved person can be moved only within three
years from the date of allotment.

15- It is in aforesaid circumstances that we find that under Rule 64 (2) (b) it has been provided
that in case an allottee fails to comply with the terms and conditions with regard to construction of
house within the time prescribed, the Collector may cancel the allotment in accordance with
Section 66.
1 All. Poem Jaiswar Vs. U.O.I. & Anr.
1041

16- We are also in agreement with the arguments raised by learned Standing counsel that the
issue pertaining to allotment of patta sites is a beneficial piece of legislation and should be
interpreted in a liberal manner so as to fulfill the objects sought to be achieved rather than to curtail
rights of the person for whom the allotment has been made.

17- Withe regard to the persons belonging to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes the period
of limitation has been done away with which fact also goes to show that the time period for
constructing a house on patta sites is not mandatory condition. This Court is also of the considered
view that merely because a person has not raised construction within three years can automatically
lead to cancellation of his allotment.

18- To ensure effectiveness of the provision for allotment of residential sites and to ensure its
compliance it is undoubtedly necessary that the land should be used for the purpose of construction
of a house within a reasonable time. In case, for any reason, the allottee has not been able to
construct house, notice should certainly be given to him requiring him to construct his house within
the time prescribed and even if within the time prescribed he or she does not construct house it
would certainly be open for the Collector to invoke the powers under Sub clause 2 (b) of Rule 64
and cancel the allotment.

19- Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons we do not find any merit in the challenge made to
the impugned orders rejecting his claim for cancellation for allotment after a period of three years
which was highly belated and the application was rightly rejected by both the authorities below. In
view of the above, no infirmity in the impugned orders can be found to interfere in the said matter.
The petition being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 1041
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.01.2026

BEFORE

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

Writ C No. 9771 of 2025

Poem Jaiswar ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Anr. ...Respondents

Issue(s) for consideration
Whether parental disputes or pending matrimonial and criminal matters between the natural guardians or
absence of consent from one parent can constitute a valid statutory reason for refusal to process and issue
the passport?

Headnotes