Collector Empowered To Cancel Residential Allotment If House Not Constructed Within Reasonable Time: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that the Collector has the power under Rule 64(2)(b) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 to cancel allotment of a residential plot if construction is not made on it within a reasonable time and after giving notices to the concerned party.Justice Alok Mathur held,“To ensure effectiveness of the provision for allotment of residential sites and to ensure...
The Allahabad High Court has held that the Collector has the power under Rule 64(2)(b) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 to cancel allotment of a residential plot if construction is not made on it within a reasonable time and after giving notices to the concerned party.
Justice Alok Mathur held,
“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.”
The lease was in favour of private respondent. Petitioner filed a complaint under Section 66 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 alleging that the private respondent had not constructed a house within 3 years of grant of lease and therefore, the lease was liable to be cancelled under Sub-clause 2 (b) of Rule 64 of the Rules.
Private respondent sought dismissal of the complaint on grounds that it was highly belated. This submission was accepted by the Collector and the complaint was rejected as it was filed after 32 years of grant of lease. Petitioner preferred a revision before Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya which was also rejected. Thereafter, petitioner approached the High Court.
The Court observed that Rule 64 provides that if a house is not constructed within 3 years of execution of lease, the lease 'may' be cancelled. The Court held that the use of 'may' was directory and not mandatory in nature.
Noting that Section 64 of U.P. Revenue Code provides for allotment of patta sites for mainly agricultural labourers who belong to all castes in society, the Court held,
“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.”
The Court also held that though an aggrieved person can move an application only within three years from the date of allotment, the Collector can, suo moto, cancel such lease within a reasonable time frame, even beyond the period of 3 years.
Since the petitioner claimed himself to be an aggrieved person, the Court held that he could have moved the application within 3 years from the date of allotment. It was held that the application was filed at a very belated stage (after 32 years), rejection of petitioner's claim was upheld.
Case Title: Shivdhari Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko. And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 90 [WRIT - C No. - 130 of 2026]
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 90