# Smt. Geeta Devi & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 786
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-03-12
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 1722 of 2026
- **Bench:** Atul Sreedharan, Siddharth Nandan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-geeta-devi-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54804
- **Pages:** 12

## Text

786 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
12. In reply to the aforesaid objection, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that there is no provision in any law prohibiting running of an ayurvedic clinic in a premises in
which an allopathic hospital is running. He has submitted that the petitioner had applied for
permission to run an outpatient ayurvedic clinic in its premises and the permission which has been
granted, specifically imposes numerous restrictions on the petitioner. He has submitted that the
petitioner has not applied for providing IPD ayurvedic services. Further, the registration of
ayurvedic clinic is temporary and it would lapse on 31.03.2026 and the learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that in case the illegal cancellation of the petitioner's registration made by
the impugned office memorandum dated 24.01.2026 is set-aside, the petitioner will not run an
ayurvedic clinic in the said premises.

13. The impugned order directs the Nodal Officer to stop functioning of the hospital with
immediate effect whereas Section 32 (2) of the Clinical Establishments (Registration and
Regulation) Act, 2010 provides that an order of cancellation of registration may take effect only if
no appeal has been preferred or the appeal preferred has been dismissed. Therefore, the order for
closure of the hospital with immediate effect is not permissible in law is violative of the provision
contained in Section 32 (2) of the Act.

14. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, when it is clear from the averments made in the
petition and the instructions and the documents provided to the learned A.C.S.C. that the impugned
order has been passed on the date of submission of inquiry report itself without giving an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the order has been passed in violation of provision
contained in Section 32 of the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act 2010 as
well as the principles of natural justice and it is unsustainable in law.

15. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned office memorandum dated
24.01.2026 passed by the Chief Medical Officer, Bahraich is hereby quashed. The petitioner will be
allowed to run the hospital registered under the Medical Establishment Certificate dated 15.05.2025
granted by the Chief Medical Officer, Bahraich. However, the Chief Medical Officer, Bahraich is granted
liberty to proceed afresh against the petitioner in accordance with law keeping in view the provision of
Section 32 of the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act 2010.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 786
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATUL SREEDHARAN, J.
THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.

Writ C No. 1722 of 2026

Smt. Geeta Devi & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
3 All. Smt. Geeta Devi & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
787
ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Whether, in the scheme of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, once an allotment is made,
the powers under Section 65 of the Code, 2006 for delivery of possession to the allottee are
confined only to the stage immediately after allotment or can also be exercised at subsequent
stages; and
2. Whether the petitioner can seek remedy by making an application under Section 134 of the
Code, 2006 which provides for ejectment of a person occupying land without title.
HEADNOTE
Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 - ss.64, 65, 129, 134 - Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules,
2016 - rr.62, 63, 64 - Constitution of India - Arts.19(1)(e), 21 - Residential lease granted to
petitioner belonging to Scheduled Caste category under Section 64 of the Code, 2006 -
Petitioner alleged dispossession/encroachment over allotted residential plot before construction
of
house
could
be
completed
-
Authorities
failed
to
act
on
application
seeking
protection/restoration of possession - State contended that remedy lies under Section 134 of
the Code, 2006 - Challenge in writ jurisdiction

Held: Very purpose of the allotment envisaged under the Code, 2006 with respect to residential plots is to
provide shelter to landless agriculturists belonging to marginalised sections of society - If application of
Section 65 of the Code, 2006 is confined only to the period immediately after allotment and only against an
encroacher existing at the time of allotment, the words "other than an allottee" used in Section 65 would be
rendered superfluous.
As far as rights of an allottee over residential site are concerned, under the provisions of the Code, 2006, the
allottee at no stage becomes a Bhumidhar by operation of law, unlike the case of agricultural land - Revenue
records are also not prepared in the name of the allottee and the land continues to be recorded as 'Abadi' land
- Unlike agricultural land, title over Abadi land continues to vest in the State and the Gaon Sabha remains
entrusted with such land - Therefore, it is an onerous duty of the State/Gaon Sabha to protect the land at all
times against encroachment - State cannot contend that although title vests in the State, burden to protect
the property lies only upon the allottee while third persons continue to enjoy State property in contravention
of the provisions of the Code, 2006 - Sub-Divisional Magistrate is required to protect possession of the
allottee in exercise of powers under Section 65 of the Code, 2006 so long as title continues to vest in the
State and the Gaon Sabha remains entrusted with the property subject to conditions of re-vesting
contemplated under Rule 64 of the Rules, 2016 -
Section 134 of the Code, 2006 is not attracted to the class of persons defined as allottees under Section 64 of
the Code, 2006 for allotment of residential houses - Proceedings under Section 134 are proceedings for
ejectment to be instituted by a Bhumidhar or Asami whereas proceedings under Section 65 are summary
proceedings to be initiated at the behest of the Gram Panchayat - Nature of both proceedings is materially
different and remedy under Section 134 is not available to allottees under Section 65 of the Code, 2006.
In the present case, petitioner-allottee was dispossessed even prior to construction of house. Court held
liability imposed upon the S.D.M. under Section 65 of the Code, 2006 cannot be said to have ceased merely
upon initial delivery of possession - Respondent No.3-S.D.M. directed to take cognizance of petitioner's
application under Section 65 of the Code, 2006 after affording opportunity of hearing to respondent nos.5 and
6 and conclude proceedings expeditiously preferably within two months.[Paras 16, 19, 25, 27, 31, 34, 35] (E5)
CASE LAW CITED
788 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Murari Singh v. State of U.P. and others, Writ-C No.1284 of 2025, decided on 17.01.2025; Hawaldar Yadav v.
State of U.P. and others, Writ-C No.13413 of 2024, reported in (2025) 12 ADJ 714
List of Acts
Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006;
Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules, 2016;
Constitution of India.
List of Keywords
Residential lease; Agriculturist labour; Scheduled Caste category; Landless person; Abadi site; Delivery of
possession to allottee; Restoration of possession to allottee; Encroachment over allotted land; Any person
other than allottee; Right to shelter; Marginalised section of society; Harmonious construction; Doctrine of
pith and substance; Bhumidhar; Asami; Re-vesting in Gram Panchayat;
CASE ARISING FROM
Petition seeking direction to respondent authorities to remove encroachment from Gata allotted to petitioners
under Sections 63, 64 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006.
Appearances for Parties
Advs For the Petitioner: Dinesh Kumar Misra, Marghoob Husain
Advs For the Respondents: Azad Rai, C.S.C.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddharth Nandan, J.)

 1. Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate along with Sri Marghoob Hussain, Advocate
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Since the matter involves, purely a question of law, with the consent of the parties the
present writ petition is decided finally at the admission stage itself.

Facts

3. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the
respondents authorities i.e. respondent.2 (District Magistrate/Collector, Fatehpur) and respondent
no.3 (S.D.M. Tehsil Khaga, District Fatehpur), to take appropriate actions against the encroachers
of Gata No.605 in Village Orha, Pargana Ekdala, Tehsil Khaga, District Fatehpur; which was
allotted to the petitioner in pursuance of the proposal dated 16.4.2012 and approval dated
24.12.2012 by the respondent no.3.

4. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was given a residential lease with respect to land
as prescribed under Section 63 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (In short Code, 2006), since he was
eligible under Section 64 of the Code, 2006 being an agriculturist labour, belonging to Scheduled
Caste category, with no house.
3 All. Smt. Geeta Devi & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
789
5. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the husband of petitioner no.1 was given the
allotment over Gata No.605 and petitioner no.2 is the brother of the said late Ram Lal. Only partial
house was constructed, when the husband of the petitioner no.1 died and eventually after she got
some compensation from the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, she mustered resources to resume
the construction, which was partially done earlier; and over a period time which was also destroyed
due to heavy rains. Thereafter when she started the constructions certain musclemen in the area are
not permitting her to raise the construction, so as to make the house inhabitable and are
encroaching over the said plot.

6. In view of the aforesaid circumstances he has approached respondent nos. 2 and 3 but till
date no action being taken on her application. She has approached this Court to protect her right to
shelter, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is a specific case that she does
not have any shelter over her head and is living in an outhouse, permitted by one of her neighbours.

Issues

 (i) Whether Section 65 of the Code, 2006 empowers the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to put
the allottee in possession of a land being allotted as provided under Section 64 of the Code, 2006,
when any person other than the allottee is in occupation especially when the house is to be
constructed or not and;

(ii) Whether Section 34 of the Code, 2006 or remedy under the Civil Procedure
Code is an efficacious remedy and can act as a bar to power under Section 65 of the Code,
2006.

 Arguments (Issue no. 1)

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that since on account of the death of the
husband of the petitioner no.1, the family was in destitute, therefore, they could not complete the
construction of the house over the plot allotted to them, being eligible under Section 64 of the
Code, 2006; and it is only after that, on account of the accident being the factor for the death of the
husband of the petitioner no.1, she got some compensation from the Motor Accident Claim
Tribunal, when she made efforts to complete the constructions, but now the private respondents are
not permitting to raise the constructions; and in view of the aforesaid, it is onerous duty of the
respondent no.3, to exercise his power under Section 65 of the Code, 2006 and put them in
possession, so as to enable them to complete the construction of the residential house.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon Section 65 of the Sub-Clause (1)
of the Code, 2006 to submit that where any land referred to under Section 63 of the Code, 2006 has
been allotted for building a house under Section 64 of the Code, 2006 and any person other than
an allottee is an occupation of such land, contrary to the provision of the Code, 2006; the SubDivisional Officer, has ample power to put the allottee in possession of such land especially when
the object of the allotment has not been achieved i.e. to provide a shelter to the allottee. He has
further submitted that the scheme of the Act also provides for summary eviction and penal
consequences in case, the land is reoccupied.
790 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
9. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that once an allotment of
such land is made and the allottee has been put in possession; and thereafter he is evicted, the
remedy available to the petitioner is under Section 134 of the Code, 2006 for the restoration of his
possession. He has relied upon the judgement of a learned Single Judge passed in Writ-C No.1284
of 2025, Murari Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others dated 17.1.2025.

10. In reply learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgement of a
learned Single Judge dated 20.11.2025 in Writ-C No.13413 of 2024, Hawaldar Yadav Vs. State
of U.P. and others reported in (2025) 12 ADJ 714.

11. It has been contended that the learned Single Judge in the case of Hawaldar Yadav
(Supra) had the occasion to consider the scope of Section 65 of the Code, 2006 and while
interpreting the import of the words any person other than an allottee used in Section 134 and
Section 129 of the Code, 2006; in consideration of the Principles of Constructive Interpretation,
had come to the conclusion that the legislature had consciously enacted Section 65 of the Code,
2006 while provisioning a power to the S.D.M. to put the allottee in possession, in case any
person other than an allottee is found to be in occupation of such land; and from the conjoint
reading of Section 65 and Section 129 of the Code, 2006, applying the Doctrine of Pith and
Substance had concluded that if the application of Section 65 of the Code, 2006 is confined only
for the period, immediately after the allotment; and only towards an encroacher, at the time of
allotment, the usage of the word other than an allottee shall be rendered superfluous. For the
ready reference para 41 and 42 of the judgement in the case of Hawaldar Yadav (Supra) is quoted
herein below:-

 "41. In view of the aforesaid, I find that the words 'any person other than an allottee is in
occupation shall be rendered meaning less if the statutory duty of the Sub Divisional Officer is
construed, to confine only for the period, after the allotment when the allottee is to be put in
possession, he shall take recourse to Section 65.In my opinion, if the said interpretation is taken,
the usage of the words other than an allottee shall be rendered superfluous and the very
purpose for existence of Section 65 shall be redundant.

 42. From the conjoint reading of Section 65 and Section 129 of the Code, 2006, applying
the Doctrine of Pith and Substance, the only plausible interpretation, keeping in mind the
objectives of the Code, 2006 itself, is that the Sub Divisional Officer is duty bound to exercise his
powers either suo moto area or on an application made by allottee, to give repossession to the
allottee.

 Discussion/Conclusion

12. The short question which arises for our consideration is as to whether in the scheme of
the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 once an allotment is made, whether the powers under
Section 65 of the Code, 2006 for delivery of possession to allottee, is confined at the stage
immediately after the allotment or can it be said to apply at subsequent stages also; and if yes, what
would be those stages.
3 All. Smt. Geeta Devi & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
791
13. In the case of Murari Singh (Supra) the learned Single Judge has concluded that
under Section 65 of the Code, 2006 the power to put the allottee in possession, is vested only with
the criminal court and the provisions of Section 65 of the Code, 2006 read with Section 129 of SubClause (2) of the Code, 2006, will not apply. The said judgement however, does not consider the
import of the words any person other than an allottee being used not merely under Section 65
(1) of the Code, 2006 but also under Section 129 of the Code, 2006 which deals with the restoration
of possession of allottees or a government lease; and had directed filing of an application under
Section 134 of the Code, 2006 for restoration of such possession.

14. We are unable to agree with the judgement in the case of Murari Singh (Supra) for the
reason that the remedy available under Section 134 of the Code, 2006 is with respect to possession
of any land forming part of any holding of any Bhumidhar or Assami and secondly the
principle of harmonious constructions, which envisages that in the given circumstances the usage
of the words restoration of possession to allottee and the usage of the words delivery of
possession to allottee has to be harmonised by examining the object and the intent of the
legislature, when identical words have been used in Sections 65 and Section 129 of the Code, 2006
i.e., any person other than the allottee or the lessee. The power under Section 65 of the Code,
2006 can also be drawn by necessary implication."

15. This Court finds, that the construction is not called upon, when the words of statute are
clear, plain and unambiguous; but if the contentions of the respondents are accepted that the State
liability has to be confined only to the extent at a point in time, which is immediately after the
allotment; and thereafter if the said allottee, which undoubtedly belongs to weaker sections of the
society, is prevented from raising the constructions, the respondent authorities cannot exercise the
powers of summary eviction over the land, which undoubtedly belongs to the State and being
entrusted to the Gaon Sabha, then the very object of making provision for a shelter to an
agriculturist labour or a member of marginalised section, will be defeated, if for any reason, he is
prevented to construct his house. It is for this reason, the limitation within which a house is to be
constructed, has not been made applicable to an allottee, belonging to scheduled caste.

16. At this juncture it will be relevant to mention that as far as the allottees rights over the
residential site is concerned, under the provisions of the Code, 2006, he at any stage does not
become a Bhumidhar by operation of law, which is the case when the nature of the land is
agricultural. As far as the revenue records are concerned, the same is also not prepared in the
name of the allottee but it remains entered as Abadi land.

17. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are unable to agree with the view
of the learned Single Judge in the case of Murari Singh (Supra) and find that the view taken by
the learned Single Judge in the case of Hawaldar Yadav (Supra) apart from the fact being a
subsequent judgement, is better in point of law. As we put context, to the text, while interpreting
Section 65, we find the ratio of Hawaldar Yadav (Supra) more appauling to the object of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006; for which reason, we also agree to the same.

18. Our view is also fortified by a principle of interpretation, that even if two constructions
are reasonably possible, preference should be given to one which help carry out the beneficent
792 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
purpose of the Act without duly expanding the scope of provisions and while considering the
provision, the intent of the legislature also cannot be lost sight of.

19. The very purpose of the allotment as envisaged under the Code, 2006 with respect to
residential plot, is to provide shelter to landless agriculturist belonging to a marginalised section of
the society and while doing so, unlike agricultural land, the title of an Abadi land is retained with
the State and Gaon Sabha being entrusted with the said land; and accordingly it is an onerous duty
of the State/Gaon Sabha that, at all time they are required to protect the land, in case of an
encroachment over the same, at least till such time, their right to re-vest is surviving. The State
cannot take a stand that in spite of the facts that the title belongs to the State, the onus to protect the
same is on the allottee; and at the same time for want of such action, a third persons continues to
enjoy the property of the State, in contravention of the provisions of the Code, 2006. It is for this
purpose that Section 65 and Section 129 of the Code, 2006 has been incorporated, to ensure that the
possession of the allottee who is a landless, marginalised person, is protected; any other
interpretation will only lead to futility, of the very purpose of the enactment; and the provision for
allotment under Section 64 of the Code, 2006.

20. At this juncture, we may also refer to Rule 64 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016
(In short Rules, 2016) which prescribes the conditions of allotment and for ready reference Rules
62, 63 & 64 of the Rules, 2016 are quoted herein below:-

 62. Other abadi sites (Sections 63 and 64)

 (1) Abadi sites other than those referred to in rule 61 and vested in a Gram Panchayat
may be allotted for construction of buildings for residential or charitable purpose or for purposes
for cottage industry in the following order of preference:

 (a) a landless agricultural labourer or a village artisan
 residing in the village;

 (b) a bhumidhar or asami residing in the village and

 holding land less than 1.26 hectares (3.125 acres);

 (c) any other person residing in the village.

 (2) Every allottee under this rule shall be required to deposit an amount equal to five
percent of the amount calculated at the circle rate fixed by the Collector from time to time and
shall be credited to the Gaon Fund:

 Provided that no premium shall be charged in respect of site allotted for charitable
purpose.

 (3) The allottee to whom the site has been allotted under the provisions of Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 or the rules framed thereunder or under this Code or the
3 All. Smt. Geeta Devi & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
793
rules framed thereunder for the purpose of cottage industry may, if the allottee is not successful in
the cottage industry for which the site had been allotted, use the site for any other industrial or
commercial purpose.

 63.Procedure for allotment by Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti (Sections 63 and 64)

 (1) Whenever the Land Management Committee proceeds to allot housing sites under
rule 61or 62, it shall announce by beat of drum in the village the exact location of the sites to be
allotted, the time, date and venue of the allotment.

 (2) All allotments shall be made by the Land Management Committee in a meeting held
for the purpose on the date announced under the preceding sub-rule. Where more than one person
belonging to the same order of preference express their desire to be allotted the particular site, the
said Committee shall draw lots to determine the person to whom the site should be allotted:

 Provided that no allotment under rule 61 or rule 62 shall be made without the prior
approval of the Sub-Divisional Officer of the Sub-Division.

 (3) The allottee of the site shall be given a receipt for the premium, if any, paid by him to
the Land Management Committee and a certificate of allotment. The certificate shall be in R.C.
Form-18 which shall be prepared in two parts, the main certificate being given to the allottee and
its counterpart remaining with the Land Management Committee for record.

 64. Maximum area and other conditions of allotment (Sections 63 and 64)

 (1) The maximum area of allotment under rule 61 or 62 shall not exceed 200 square
meters.

 (2) The allottee of an abadi site shall not be liable to

 pay any premium or ground rent, but he shall hold such

 abadi site on the following terms and conditions:-

 (a) The allottee shall build a house and shall begin to reside in it or use it for the purpose
for which the site was allotted within a period of three years from the date of delivery of possession
of the site allotted.

 (b) If the allottee fails to comply with the terms and conditions incorporated in clause (a)
of sub-rule (2) of this rule, the Collector may cancel the allotment in accordance with section 66:

 Provided that in the case of the persons belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe
the aforesaid time limit for building of the house shall not apply.
794 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 (c) The allottee or his heirs shall not be entitled to transfer the site or the house built
thereon by sale within a period of five years from the date of allotment. If the site or house is
transferred after the expiry of five years from the date of allotment, the allottee shall not be eligible
for re-allotment.

 (d) The allottee shall have heritable interest in the land so allotted.

 (e) The succession to the land shall be governed by the personal law of the allottee.

 (f) Subject to the provisions of section 66, the allottee or his heirs shall not be liable to be
ejected from the land allotted or from the house built thereon.

 (g) If the land or the house built thereon is abandoned or if the allottee or his heirs die
without any heir, the property shall re-vest in the Gram Panchayat."

21. The perusal of the Rule 62 which provides that Abadi sites which may be allotted for
construction of buildings for residential or charitable purpose, as per the order of preference,
requires the allottee under this Rule to deposit an amount equal to 5% of the amount calculated at
the circle rate fixed by the Collector from time to time and shall be credited to the Gaon fund. The
procedure for allotment is prescribed under Rule 63 of the Rules, 2016 which determines that the
allottee of the site shall be given a receipt for the premium, if any, paid by him to the Land
Management Committee and a certificate of allotment in RC Form 18.

22. Thereafter, Rule 64 of the Rules 2016 deals with the maximum area of allotment under
Rule 61 or 62, which shall not be exceed 200 square meter. Rule 64(2) of the Rules, 2016
prescribes the terms and conditions, in which an allottee of an Abadi site shall not be liable to pay
any premium or ground rent. A perusal of the conditions clearly states that if a person is belonging
to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes, a timeline for construction of house within a period of
three years from the date of delivery of possession of the site allotted, will not be applicable; but
however, it imposes restrictions on the entitlement to transfer the site or the house built thereon. No
doubt it provides the allottee with heritable interest in the lands so allotted and rights of succession
but at the same time it also provides a condition, in which the property shall re-vest in the Gram
Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat, in certain circumstances, also holds a right to cancel the
allotment; and as such the title does not pass to the allottee; and till such time, the Gram Panchayat,
remains liable towards protection of the property, against any mis-appropriation or encroachment.

23. From the readings of the terms and conditions, it cannot be said that after the allotment,
the allottee becomes a Bhumidhar with transferable rights, in all circumstances.

24. A provision for settlement of house sites has been provided under Rule 68 of the Rules,
2016 regarding persons referred to in Section 64(1) of the Code, 2006, who has built a house on
any land referred to in Section 63 of the Code, 2006 but the said benefit is only to those persons
whose house exists on twenty-ninth day of November, 2012.
3 All. Smt. Geeta Devi & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
795
25. In the present case since the allottee i.e. petitioner has been dispossessed even prior to
building of a house, the liability imposed on the S.D.M. under Section 65 of the Code, 2006 cannot
be said to have ceased by merely delivering of the possession.

26. We may also indicate before parting with the issue in hand that the "Right to Shelter" is
now a Fundamental Right, guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution of India i.e. under Article
19(1)(e) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

27. In view of the aforesaid we conclude that the judgement in the case of Hawaldar
Yadav (Supra) lays down a correct principle of law and we are in agreement with the same for the
reasons stated therein, as well as the observations made herein above; as such Sub-Divisional
Magistrate is required to protect the possession of the allottee in exercise of his powers under
Section 65 of the Code, 2006, as long as the title vests in the State and Gaon Sabha is entrusted
with the property, with conditions for re-vesting, in the terms and conditions of allotment envisaged
under Rule 64 of the Rules, 2016.

Issue No.2

28. Learned counsel for the respondents while relying upon the judgement in the case of
Murari Singh (Supra) has contended that the petitioner can seek remedy while making an
application under Section 134 of the Code, 2006 which provides for ejectment of person occupying
land without title.

29. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Section 134 of the
Code, 2006 is applicable in cases where there is occupation of land forming part of holding of any
Bhumidhar or Assami otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of law; and as such the
same shall not be applicable to an allottee under Section 64 of the Act, 2006; as he cannot be
termed either a Bhumidhar or an Assami.

Discussion/Conclusion

30. Section 78 of the Code, 2006 defines Asami and Section 79 of the Code, 2006 provides
for the right of Bhumidhar to exclusive possession. For ready reference Sections 78 and 79 of the
Code, 2006 are quoted herein under:-

 "78. Asami.- Every person belonging to any of the following classes, shall be called an
asami, andshall have all the rights and be subject to all the liabilities conferred or imposed upon
such asamiby or under this Code, namely:-

 (a) subject to the provisions of clause (dd) of sub-section (1) of section 76 of this Code,
every person who was an asami immediately before the date of commencement of this Code;

 (b) every person who is admitted as an asami on or after the said date by the Bhumi
Prabandhak Samiti to any land under or in accordance with the provisions of this Code;
796 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 (c) every person who is admitted as lessee on or after the said date, by a bhumidhar of
any land under or in accordance with the provisions of this Code;

 (d) every person who in any other manner acquires the rights of an asami under or in
accordance with the provisions of this Code or any other law for the time being in force.

 79. Right of Bhumidhars to exclusive possession.- (1) A bhumidhar with transferable
rights shall, subject to the provision of this Code, have the right to exclusive possession of all land
of which he is such a bhumidhar and to use it for any purpose whatsoever.

 (2) a bhumidhar with non transferable rights shall, subject to the provisions of this Code,
have the right to exclusive possession of all land of which he is such a bhumidhar, and to use such
land for any purpose connected with agriculture."

31. We have already considered herein above that there are no provisions in the Code, for
an allottee under Section 64 of the Code, 2006 to have become a deemed Bhumidhar with
transferable rights, with respect to an allotment of a plot for residential house; as is the case in case
of an agricultural land. Perusal of the definition of Bhumidhar or an Asami as provided
under Sections 78 and 79 of the Code, 2006; does not conclude, in any manner, that an allottee
under Section 64, can fall in any of these categories. We also note that in circumstances
enumerated under Section 64(3) read-with Rule 64 an allotment can be cancelled or the property
may re-vest in State/Gram Panchayat. However, there is an un-escapable conclusion, on
harmonising the construction of Section 65 and Section 129 read-with Rule 64; that as long as the
State/Gram Panchayat holds an interest, in the property allotted, they are also under an onerous
duty to protect the same against any damage or mis-appropriation which includes encroachment,
till such time, the object of the allotment i.e. to provide a shelter, to an agriculturist labour, from
marginalised section is achieved; and which is also a Constitutional obligation, on a welfare State.

32. As far as the persons, who have been defined as Asami under Section 78 of the
Code, 2006 is concerned, are those persons who are tenants with non-permanent, non transferable,
but heritable rights to the land. They are allowed to cultivate specific lands, which are public utility
land such as pastures etc. Asamies have right to possess and use land for agriculture or allied
activities; but can be evicted for violations. They are distinguishable from secured tenure-holders
like Bhumidhars.

33. In view of the aforesaid, we find that Section 134 of the Code, 2006 is not attracted to
the class of persons who are defined, being allottee under Section 64 of the Code, 2006 for the
purposes of allotment for construction of residential house.

34. While examining the aforesaid provisions and the remedy available under Section 134
of the Code, 2006, we find that the natures of remedy under Section 134 of the Code, 2006 and
Section 65 of the Code, 2006 are distinct in nature. In case of ejectment, under Section 134 of the
Code, 2006, a suit is to be preferred by the Bhumidhar or Asami concerned; and which
makes provisions of payment for damages. The State Government and Gram Panchayat are
necessary parties in such proceedings. In case of proceedings under Section 65 of the Code, 2006
3 All. Sobratan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
797
primarily, it is a summary proceeding; and secondly it is to be initiated at the behest of the
Gram Panchayat. As such, we find that the nature of the said proceedings are materially different
and for the said reasons also, it is not a remedy available for allottees under Section 65 of the Code,
2006.

Directions

35. In view of the foregoing discussions, the present Writ Petition stands allowed with the
following directions:-

 (i) The Respondent no. 3 i.e., S.D.M, Tehsil- Khaga, Disrtrict- Fatehpur is directed to
take cognizance of the application of the petitioner, in exercise of its power under Section 65 of the
Code, 2006 and proceed as per law.

 (ii) It is also provided that the Respondent no. 3 shall provide due opportunity of hearing
to Respondent no. 5 and 6 and shall proceed to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as
possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of service of certified copy of this
order.

36. It is clarified that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and
the proceedings under section 65 of the Code, 2006 shall proceed as per law adhering to the
Principles of Natural Justice.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 797
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATUL SREEDHARAN, J.
THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.

Writ C No. 4938 of 2026

Sobratan ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Matter pertains to the legality of rejection of petitioner's claim for compensation under the Chief
Minister Farmers Accident Insurance Scheme on the ground that post-mortem report did not
disclose definite cause of death due to snakebite.
HEADNOTE