Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1443 (ALL)

Abhinav Singh v. Board Of Revenue U. P.

2025-12-17

NEERAJ TIWARI

body2025
JUDGMENT : NEERAJ TIWARI, J. 1. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Rai, learned counsel for petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 4, Sri Shyam Surat Shukla, learned counsel for respondent no. 6 and Mr. Samir Sharma, learned Senior Counsel as amicus curiae appointed by this Court vide order dated26.08.2025. 2. Present petition has been filed seeking following relief:- “(I) Issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned revisional order dt. 10.07.25 passed by respondent no. 1 and impugned order dt. 28.05.25 passed by respondent no. 4 (Annexure No. 1 & 2 to this writ petition respectively). (II) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 4 to cancel the lease deed dt. 15.02.23 as per provisions of section 104 of the code and Rule 103 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules 2016.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that an advertisement was issued on 28.06.2023 for allotment of Retail Outlet Dealership of Indian Oil Corporation. Along with petitioner, respondent no. 6 was also one of the applicant. In terms of advertisement, respondent no. 6 has produced required lease deed of land executed by respondent no. 5 for 29 years and 11 months. Based upon that, Letter of Intent was issued in favour of respondent no. 6. At this stage, petitioner has challenged the lease deed before the Sub Divisional Officer on the ground that lease deed so executed is in violation of Section 94 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Code, 2006’), therefore, it is void in terms of Section 104 of Code, 2006 read with Rules 103 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules, 2016’). Against the said application, objection was filed and in objection apart from other grounds, it is firmly stated that petitioner is having no locus to challenge the lease deed executed under Section 94 of Code, 2006. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that from the perusal of Section 94 of Code, 2006, it is apparently clear that lease deed in Section 94 of Code, 2006 can only be executed for agriculture or for setting up Solar Plant, whereas in the present case, it is executed for establishment of Retail Outlet of Indian Oil, therefore, the said lease deed may be declared void. He next submitted that instead of declaring the lease deed void, Sub Divisional Officer has rejected the application of petitioner only on the ground that applicant is having no locus to challenge the same as he is neither owner nor co-sharer. He firmly submitted that in terms of Section 94 of Code, 2006 read with Rule, 103 of Rules, 2016, there is no need to become a co-sharer or owner and only information is sufficient to declare the lease deed void. He also submitted that in terms of Rule 186 of Rules, 2016, provisions of Civil Procedure Code would not be applicable in present case, therefore, under such facts orders impugned are bad and liable to be set aside. He also pointed out that averment so made in lease deed is false and fabricated as the facts are entirely different. In support of that, he has also placed reliance upon Khasra, Khatauni and report of Lekhpal, where it is stated that two rooms are present but on the spot, no rooms are in existence on the land in dispute, therefore, lease deed is based upon incorrect facts. Petitioner has challenged the order by filing Revision No. 2692 of 2025, which was dismissed at the admission stage vide order dated 10.07.2025 affirming the order of Sub Divisional Officer dated 28.05.2025. 5. Per contra, Sri Shukla, learned counsel for respondent no. 6 submitted that Section 94 of Code, 2006 pertains to execution of private lease and further Section 95 of Code, 2006 provides the provisions of cancellation or termination in case of dispute. He firmly submitted that Section 95(6)(e) of Code, 2006 clearly provides that it can only be terminated by lesser or lessee by a Bhumidhar on a mutually agreed terms. He also pointed out that so far as sections 104 & 105 of Code, 2006 are concerned; Section 104 provides transfer in contravention of this Code to be void and further Section 105 of Code, 2006 provides consequences of transfer by bhumidhar in contravention of this Code. He also pointed out Rule 103 of Rules, 2016 provides procedure to follow in case any application is filed under Sections 104 or 105 of Code, 2006. He next submitted that Section 105(e) clearly provides that provisions of this section shall not apply to any lease made under Section 94 of Code, 2006. He also pointed out Rule 103 of Rules, 2016 provides procedure to follow in case any application is filed under Sections 104 or 105 of Code, 2006. He next submitted that Section 105(e) clearly provides that provisions of this section shall not apply to any lease made under Section 94 of Code, 2006. He also submitted that after reading Sections 104 & 105 of Code, 2006 read with Rule 103 of Rules, 2016, it is apparently clear that this would be applicable for a lease of State land and not for a lease executed by a private person, therefore, Section 105(e) is inserted later on to clarify this fact that provision of Section 105 of Code, 2006 shall not be applicable to a lease executed under Section 94 of Code, 2006 and in light of that, provision so given in Rule 103 of Rules, 2016 would also not be applicable. 6. He further submitted that Section 144 of Code, 2006 is having provision to file declaratory suits which clearly says that any person claiming to be Bhumidhar or asami of any holdings exclusively or jointly with any other person may file suit for declaration of his right in such holding or part. He further submitted that ratio of Section 144 of Code, 2006 shall also be applicable for filing suit for cancellation of lease deed. In absence of claiming to Bhumidhar or asami or any right over the land in question, no suit for cancellation of lease deed may be filed. 7. In light of said facts, he firmly submitted that only person having locus i.e. either lessor or lessee in private lease deed may proceed to cancel or terminate the lease deed and in present case, undisputedly, petitioner is only co-applicant for allotment of retail outlet of Indian Oil and has nothing to do with private lease deed i.e. neither he is lessor nor lessee, therefore, he cannot challenge the private lease deed, therefore, impugned orders have rightly been passed. 8. I have considered rivals submissions advanced by learned counsels for parties and perused the records. 9. Undisputed fact of the case is that petitioner is having no concern with the land in dispute, neither he is owner nor co-sharer and his interest is involved only for allotment of Retail Outlet of Indian Oil after submission of application form. 8. I have considered rivals submissions advanced by learned counsels for parties and perused the records. 9. Undisputed fact of the case is that petitioner is having no concern with the land in dispute, neither he is owner nor co-sharer and his interest is involved only for allotment of Retail Outlet of Indian Oil after submission of application form. Therefore, issue is as to whether petitioner is having any locus to challenge the private lease executed in terms of Section 94 of Code, 2006 or not. Argument so advanced before the Court is based upon interpretation of Sections 94, 104, 105 & 144 of Code, 2006 and Rule 103 of Rules, 2016. For ready reference, Sections 94, 104 & 105 of Code, 2006 and Rule 103 of Rules, 2016 are being quoted below:- “ Code, 2006 94. Private lease by a Bhumidhar.- (1) A Bhumidhar may lease out his holding or any part thereof to any person, firm, company, partnership firm, limited liability partnership firm, trust, society or any other legal entity for agriculture or for setting up a solar energy plant. Such lease shall be known as the private lease by a bhumidhar. (2) Private lease by a Bhumidhar means a contract based on an agreement, with mutually agreed terms and conditions, between Lessor, who may be a Bhumidhar and the Lessee who wishes to undertake agricultural activities or set up a solar energy plant, by which the Lessor grants permission to the Lessee to use the land or holding or any part thereof for agricultural purposes or for establishment of solar energy plant, against a consideration in cash or kind or a share of produce, payable to the Lessor as per the lease agreement. (3) Period of private lease by a bhumidhar— maximum period of the private lease by a Bhumidhar shall not exceed fifteen years at a time: Provided that, after the expiration of the first lease period, the duration of lease period may be further extended by mutual consent of the Lessor and the Lessee: Provided further that for purpose of establishing a solar energy plant, the maximum period may be upto thirty years. (4) Conditions of the private Lease by a bhumidhar- The terms and conditions of the private lease by a bhumidhar shall be as mutually agreed between the Lessor and Lessee. (4) Conditions of the private Lease by a bhumidhar- The terms and conditions of the private lease by a bhumidhar shall be as mutually agreed between the Lessor and Lessee. The general conditions of the lease shall be in the manner as may be prescribed. 95. Lease- how made, its termination and any dispute arising thereto . -Private lease by a bhumidhar may be oral or in writing or Registered.-(1) Private Lease by a bhumidhar for a single crop or for period upto one year may be either oral or in writing. Lease agreement for period exceeding one year shall be made by a registered instrument only. (2) Private Lease by a bhumidhar to be recorded in remarks column of Record of Rights – In case of written or registered lease agreement, a copy of the agreement or deed shall be made available to Revenue Inspector concerned, who shall pass order for recording the details of the private lease by a bhumidhar lease agreement (names and other details of Lessor and Lessee; date of agreement; period of lease; proposed use of land; and annual lease rent) in the Remarks column of Record of Rights (khatauni). (3) Private Lease by a bhumidhar shall not create any type of Tenancy Right- An agreement of private lease by a Bhumidhar either registered under the Registration Act 1908 or countersigned by a Revenue Officer or Gram Pradhan or notarized by a Notary or oral, shall not create or confer any rights or interest in favour of the Lessee over the leased land, including protected tenancy or occupancy right or any other right against eviction or lease termination, other than those contained in this Act or Rules, the lease agreement shall not be used by the Lessee to establish and permanent right over the leased land in any Court of Law. (4) Resumption of Land- After expiration of the private lease by a bhumidhar period of or termination of such private lease, the instrument of private lease by a bhumidhar shall be a nullify and if the period of such private lease is not extended, the leased land shall automatically revert to the Lessor and the Lessee shall hand over peaceful possession of the land, free from all encumbrances, to the Lessor and shall cease to have any right, title or interest in the land so leased out. Explanation- Regardless of any dispute, arising out of private lease made under Section 94, pending before any Court of Law, the Lessor shall be entitled to get peaceful possession of the leased land after the expiration of the private lease period and the Lessee shall have no right to retain possession over the leased land. (5) Effect of Private Lease by a bhumidhar – The Provisions contained in the Code regarding private lease by a bhumidhar shall not have retrospective effect. (6) Termination of the private lease by a bhumidhar - (a) Unless extended by mutual consent between the Lessor and Lessee, the private lease agreement would terminate on expiry of the private lease period mentioned in the agreement. (b) In case of non-payment of consideration amount or annual lease rent by the Lessee by the due date, or if any of the terms and conditions of the private lease are violated by him, the private lease by a bhumidhar agreement may be terminated by the Lessor, prior to-expiry of the lease period, after giving due notice to the Lessee in writing. (c) In case the private lease agreement is proposed to be terminated prematurely by the Lessor, then the Lessee shall be entitled to remove such structures, machinery etc. that were created or installed by the Lessee on the leased land. The Lessee would also be entitled to recover such damages and compensation from the Lessor, as agreed upon and laid down in the private lease agreement. (d) In case the Lessee wishes to terminate the lease agreement prematurely or surrenders the land during the private lease by a bhumidhar period, then he shall have to give at least six months’ notice to the Lessor and shall also be liable to pay the annual rent for the remaining part of the year to the Lessor, in addition to such other compensation, as agreed upon and laid down in the private lease by a bhumidhar agreement or as prescribed. (e) In case after expiration of the private lease by a bhumidhar period or termination of the lease agreement, the Lessee fails to handover peaceful possession of the leased land to the Lessor, the Lessee shall be treated as unauthorised occupant and shall be liable to be ejected from the leased land. (e) In case after expiration of the private lease by a bhumidhar period or termination of the lease agreement, the Lessee fails to handover peaceful possession of the leased land to the Lessor, the Lessee shall be treated as unauthorised occupant and shall be liable to be ejected from the leased land. The Lessee shall also be liable to pay such penal rent or damages to the Lessor for the period of unauthorised occupation, as provided in the private lease by a bhumidhar agreement, in addition to the cost of such ejection. (f) The Lessor and Lessee may terminate the private, lease by a bhumidhar on mutually agreed terms at any time. (7) Disputes arising out of the private lease by a bhumidhar- (a) In an event of a dispute arising out of the private lease agreement by a bhumidhar, or any terms and conditions thereof; the Lessee and the Lessor shall make all efforts to amicably resolve and settle the dispute amongst themselves or if mutually agreed, by using mediation by a third party arbitrator or Gram Panchayat or Village Revenue Committee. (b) If the dispute is not settled through the mechanism mentioned in Clause (a) either party may file a petition before the Sub-Divisional Officer. (c) The Sub-Divisional Officer shall adjudicate the dispute using the summary procedure within a period of thirty days of its institution. (d) An appeal against the order, other than an interim order, passed by a Sub-Divisional Officer, shall lie before the Commissioner. The decision of Commissioner shall subject to the provision of section 210, be final.” 104. Transfer in contravention of this Code to be void.- Every Lease or transfer of interest in any holding or part thereof made by a bhumidhar or any asami in contravention of the provisions of this Code shall be void. 105. The decision of Commissioner shall subject to the provision of section 210, be final.” 104. Transfer in contravention of this Code to be void.- Every Lease or transfer of interest in any holding or part thereof made by a bhumidhar or any asami in contravention of the provisions of this Code shall be void. 105. Consequences of transfer by bhumidhar in contravention of the Code.- (1) Where transfer of interest in any holding or part made by a bhumidhar is void under section 104, the following consequences shall, with effect from the date of such transfer, ensue, namely:- (a) the subject matter of such transfer shall vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances; (b) the trees, crops, wells and other improvements, existing on such holding or part shall vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances; (c) the interests of the transferor and the transferee in the properties specified in clauses (a) and (b) shall stand extinguished; (d) the extinction of interest of the transferor under clause (c) shall operate to extinguish the interest of any asami holding under him. (e) the provisions of this section shall not apply to any lease made under section 94. (2) Where any land or other property has vested in the State Government under sub section (1), it shall be lawful for the Collector to take over possession of such land and other property, and to direct that any person occupying such land or property be evicted there from, and for that purpose, the Collector may use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary and the provisions of section 59 mutatis mutandis shall apply to such property. 144. Declaratory suits by tenure holders. - (1) Any person claiming to be a bhumidhar or asami of any holding or part thereof, whether exclusively or jointly with any other person, may sue for a declaration of his rights in such holding or part. (2) In every suit under sub-section (1) instituted by or on behalf of:- (a) a bhumidhar, the State and the Gram Panchayat shall be necessary parties; (b) an asami, the land-holder shall be a necessary party Rule, 2016 103. (2) In every suit under sub-section (1) instituted by or on behalf of:- (a) a bhumidhar, the State and the Gram Panchayat shall be necessary parties; (b) an asami, the land-holder shall be a necessary party Rule, 2016 103. Transfer in contravention of the provisions of the Code (Section 105).- (1) If a bhumidhar or an asami has transferred his interest in any holding or part thereof which is void under section 104, the Lekhpal shall promptly submit a report to the Sub-Divisional Officer containing particulars specified in rule 97(1). (2) On receipt of the report of the Lekhpal under sub- rule (1), or on information received otherwise, the Sub- Divisional Officer shall call upon the parties to the transfer to show cause, why action under section 104 read with section 105 should not be taken in respect of the land in question. (3) After hearing the parties and making such inquiries as may be considered necessary, if the Sub- Divisional Officer is satisfied that the transfer in question is void under section 104, he shall declare that: (a) the subject matter of such transfer shall vest in the State Government; (b) the trees, crops, well and other improvements existing on the holding or part shall vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances; and (c) the interests of the transferor as well as of the transferee stood extinguished, from the date of such transfer. (4) The Sub-Divisional Officer shall direct that the revenue records should be corrected accordingly and where the transfer in contravention of the provisions of the Code relates to a part of the holding, he shall also fix land revenue in respect of the part left with the transferor in accordance with Chapter XI of these rules. (5) Every order of the Sub-Divisional Officer under this rule shall be endorsed to the Samiti for necessary action. (6) Where any property referred to in section 105 has vested in the State Government, the Collector may evict any person in unauthorised occupation of such property and deliver possession thereof to the Gram Panchayat concerned.” 10. From the perusal of Section 94 of Code, 2006, it is apparently clear that private lease deed can only be cancelled in terms of Section 95(6)(f) of Code, 2006. From the perusal of Section 94 of Code, 2006, it is apparently clear that private lease deed can only be cancelled in terms of Section 95(6)(f) of Code, 2006. So far as Sections 104 & 105 of Code, 2006 and Rule 103 of Rules, 2016 are concerned, once Section 105(e) has been inserted excluding the applicability of the same upon the lease executed under Section 94 of Code, 2006, provisions of Sections 104 & 105 of Code, 2006 read with Rule 103 of Rules, 2016 would not be applicable. Again coming to the interpretation of Sections 104 & 105 of Code, 2006 and Rule 103 of Rules, 2016, no doubt on the point that lease may be executed either by private person or by State. In case it has been executed by State Government, every one is having right to inform the concerned authority if it is in violation of law, but once it is not the case, only person aggrieved is having right to challenge the private lease deed as provided in Section 95 of Code, 2006. Petitioner is deriving his locus from the cancellation of his application submitted for allotment of Retail Outlet of Indian Oil. In case supposing it that the suit is allowed, the consequences would be that the land would be again vested with the original owner and petitioner would not be beneficiary in any way. 11. Therefore, petitioner cannot said to be person aggrieved and accordingly, he would have no locus standi to challenge the private lease deed executed under Section 94 of Code, 2006. 12. I have also perused Section 144 of Code, 2006. From perusal of same, it is absolutely clear that for declaratory suit, any person claiming to be Bhumidhar or asami either exclusively or jointly with any other person may file suit for declaration of his rights. In spirit, this section would also be applicable for filing suit for cancellation of any instrument executed under the provisions of Code, 2006. The intention of legislation is again very much clear that only person who is having any right over the land may file suit either for cancellation or for declaration of rights. Once the person is having no right over the land or property in dispute, neither he can file suit for cancellation nor for declaration of his rights. 13. Mr. The intention of legislation is again very much clear that only person who is having any right over the land may file suit either for cancellation or for declaration of rights. Once the person is having no right over the land or property in dispute, neither he can file suit for cancellation nor for declaration of his rights. 13. Mr. Samir Sharma, learned Senior Counsel as amicus curiae appointed by this Court vide order dated 26.08.2025 has assisted the Court by vide interpretation of Sections 104, 105 & 144 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and Rule 103 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016. This Court express its gratitude for his valuable assistance. 14. So far as cancellation of allotment of Retail Outlet of Indian Oil is concerned, petitioner is not the remedy less and for redressal of his grievance, he may challenge the allotment of Retail Outlet of Indian Oil even taking the ground of alleged illegal lease deed in contravention of Section 94 of Code, 2006. 15. For cancellation of lease deed executed under Section 94 of Code, 2006, petitioner has to show his locus first which is totally missing in present case in light of observations made here-in above. Therefore, Sub Divisional Officer has rightly rejected the application of petitioner, which was also affirmed by the Revisional Court. 16. Once, the Court has held that petitioner is having no locus to challenge the private lease deed executed under Section 94 of Code, 2006, provisions of Rule 186 of Rules, 2016 would not come in the rescue of petitioner as it can only be seen once the petitioner is having locus to challenge the private lease deed in question. 17. Therefore, I have found no infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders dated 10.07.2025 and 28.05.2025. 18. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. 19. No order as to costs.