SDO Has No Power To Alter Land Classification Under UP Zamindari Abolition And Land Reforms Act: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today held that under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, a Sub-Divisional Officer has no authority to change the classification of land recorded as public utility land so as to enable grant of bhumidhari rights.

“Even otherwise, the Abolition Act, does not confer any authority upon the Sub-Divisional Officer to alter the category of land so as to bring it outside the prohibitory ambit of Section 132. The only mechanism contemplated by the Abolition Act for any conversion of land category is found in Section 117(6), which empowers the State Government—and the State Government alone—to resume land from the Gaon Sabha and make a fresh declaration vesting such land in a local authority”, the Court observed.

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice NV Anjaria upheld the cancellation of pattas granted over pasture land in Hardoi district, UP, holding that the land was public utility land under Section 132 (Land in which bhumidhari rights shall not accrue) of the UP Land Reforms Act, 1950 and could not have been allotted for private rights.

The Court upheld the Allahabad High Court's decision which had found that the Sub-Divisional Officer had no authority to change the categorisation of the land from Category-6 to Category-5 and that the pattas granted on that basis were void.

The dispute concerned land originally recorded as Category-6 in the khatauni prior to October 31, 1992. Under Paragraph A-124 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Records Manual, Category-6 includes barren or uncultivated land, land covered with water, and land used for non-agricultural purposes such as roads and buildings.

On April 5, 1992, the Lekhpal reported that the Gaon Sabha had resolved to change the category of the land to Category-5, which denotes cultivable land. Similar recommendations were made by the Revenue Inspector and the Naib Tehsildar.

Acting on these reports, the Tehsildar recommended reclassification on October 31, 1992, and the Sub-Divisional Officer approved it on the same date. Pattas were then granted to the appellant and others, and their names were entered in the revenue records.

The village was later brought under consolidation proceedings. During these proceedings, the appellant's land was assigned valuation and chaks were carved out under Section 20 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act. His name continued in records under Section 23, and possession of the chaks was delivered on July 1, 2013.

During consolidation, a report dated February 8, 2016 stated that the land was recorded in 1379 Fasli as khalihan and pasture land, which are public utility lands under Section 132 of the Act. It said pattas could not have been granted and the appellant's name should be removed. Following a reference by the District Collector on October 27, 2017, the Consolidation Officer on February 12, 2019 expunged the appellant's name and restored the land to its original category.

The High Court upheld this action, holding that the land fell under Section 132, which prohibits accrual of bhumidhari rights over pasture land, land covered by water, and land set apart for public purposes.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the Sub-Divisional Officer had authority under Paragraph Ka-155-Ka of the Manual and Section 227(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act to alter entries in revenue records. He also contended that fresh proceedings were barred by res judicata in view of earlier orders.

The State argued that Category-6 land includes non-agricultural land and that the land in question was public utility land under Section 132. It submitted that bhumidhari rights could only arise in respect of land under Section 117, and only temporary Asami pattas for five years could be granted for such land.

The Court observed that Paragraph Ka-155-Ka only identifies competent authorities for making entries in revenue records and does not confer power to change the category of land itself. It clarified that the provision applies to entries affecting the rights of existing tenure holders and not to reclassification of land.

It further held that the Abolition Act does not empower the Sub-Divisional Officer to alter land classification. The only mechanism for such change lies with the State Government under Section 117(6) read with Section 77(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 2006, subject to strict conditions.

“Since it is established that no bhumidhari rights accrue in respect of such lands, the pattas granted in favour of the appellant cannot be sustained and are treated to be void ab initio”, the Court stated.

The Court found that the land was recorded as khalihan and pasture land, which falls within Section 132. As a result, no bhumidhari rights could accrue. Even if a patta had been granted, it could only have been an Asami patta, which under Rule 176-A of the 1952 Rules is limited to five years and had already expired.

On res judicata, the Court held that the earlier proceedings did not decide the validity of the pattas on merits and therefore the issue was never adjudicated.

Holding that the re-categorisation was without jurisdiction and the pattas were void ab initio, the Court found no error in the High Court judgment and dismissed the appeal.

Case no. – SLP (Civil) No. 16855 of 2019

Case Title – Babu Singh v. Consolidation Officer and Others

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 405