UP Revenue Code | Co-Bhumidhar Can Seek Land Use Change For Own Share Only After Legal Division Of Joint Holding: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court has recently observed that a non-agricultural land use declaration under Section 80(1) or 80(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, does not imply that the land has been partitioned among co-bhumidhars. Interpreting Section 80 (4) of the Code, a bench of Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava and Justice Shekhar B. Saraf clarified that if one of...
The Allahabad High Court has recently observed that a non-agricultural land use declaration under Section 80(1) or 80(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, does not imply that the land has been partitioned among co-bhumidhars.
Interpreting Section 80 (4) of the Code, a bench of Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava and Justice Shekhar B. Saraf clarified that if one of the co-bhumidhars wants to apply for non-agricultural use of jointly owned land, then either all co-bhumidhars must apply together, or if only one of the co-bhumidhars is applying for the same concerning his own share, the land in question must already be partitioned as per the provisions of Section 116 of the 2006 Code and the relevant Rules.
“…the application [under section 80 (1) of 2006 Code], at the instance of a co-bhumidhar having his share in the land with joint interest, would have to be preceded by the determination of shares of the co-bhumidhars in the land in question in accordance with the provisions of law. This would mean that an application for declaration under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) at the behest of any cobhumidhar, having undivided interest in the bhumidhari land, would be maintainable only upon fulfilment of the necessary pre-condition that the land in question had been divided in accordance with the provisions of law, i.e. as per the provisions contained under Section 116 of the Code, 2006 and the relevant Rules.”
The bench made this observation while upholding Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.'s (BPCL) decision to reject the petitioners' application for a petrol pump dealership.
BPCL based its decision on its Dealer Selection Guidelines, 2023, which state that if the offered land is on a long-term lease and there are multiple owners of the land in question, then all co-owners must execute the lease. If this is not the case, the lease will be treated as invalid.
In this case, the lease deed was executed in favour of the petitioners by only one co-owner of the land in question, while the revenue records showed that there were four other co-owners of the same.
Challenging BPCL's decision, the petitioners approached the High Court, arguing that the land had already been partitioned by an order dated December 20, 2019, which declared the share of co-bhumidhar Vijay Singh (the person who executed the lease deed in their favour).
It was the contention of the petitioners that as per sub-section (4) of Section 80 of the 2006 Code, once a declaration under Section 80 is made, it presupposes that the land has already been divided or partitioned in accordance with law.
On the other hand, the counsel for respondents nos. 2 to 4 argued that the order of December 20, 2019 was passed under Section 80(1) of the Code, 2006, which only deals with declaring non-agricultural use of land and cannot be understood as an order affecting the partition of the land.
Against the backdrop of these submissions, the Court examined the statutory framework of the 2006 Code to note that the second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 80 provides that no application for declaration moved by any co-bhumidhar having an undivided interest in bhumidhari land shall be maintainable unless all co-bhumidhars join the application or their interests have been divided in accordance with law.
Referring to Rule 88 of the Rules, 2016, the Court observed that apportionment of land revenue, after such a declaration, requires demarcation when the declaration pertains only to a part of the holding.
The Court pointed out that this demarcation is to be carried out in the manner laid down under Rule 22 of the Rules, 2016, which deals with the settlement of boundary disputes under Section 24 of the Code.
It was further noted that by virtue of the UP Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 2019, Section 80 has been entirely substituted and now, as per the present sub-section (4) of Section 80, an application for declaration under sub-section (1) or (2) by a co-bhumidhar with undivided interest is not maintainable unless all co-bhumidhars apply jointly.
The provision further stipulates that if only one co-bhumidhar seeks a declaration for his share in land with joint interest, such application shall be entertained only after the shares of other co-bhumidhars are divided in accordance with law as Section 116 of the Code.
In other words, as clarified by the division bench, an application under Section 80(1) or (2) can be maintained by a co-bhumidhar (concerning his own share of land) only if the said land has already been divided in accordance with Section 116 of the Code and the relevant Rules.
Now, since in the present case, the petitioners failed to produce any document showing that property had been divided among all co-owners under Section 116 of the Code, the Court, finding no material error or illegality in the impugned, dismissed the petitioners' plea.
Appearances
Counsel for Petitioner: Akhileshwar Pratap Singh, Atul Kumar
Counsel for Respondent: A.S.G.I., Komal Mehrotra
Case title - Ishan Chaudhary And Another vs. Union Of India And 4 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 136
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 136