Court Upholds Sub-Divisional Officer's Exclusive Jurisdiction Under U.P. Revenue Code
In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court has annulled orders passed by the Collector regarding land vesting, emphasizing the jurisdictional mandate of the Sub-Divisional Officer under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The case, titled Kulliyatul Banatir Razviya Educational and Welfare Society v. State of U.P., was presided over by Justice Arun Kumar. The petitioner, a registered educational society, contested orders dated April 24, 2026, and November 14, 2025, which were passed by the District Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar, and subsequently upheld by the Commissioner, Division Basti.
The controversy arose when a complaint was filed against the society's land purchase, alleging it was void since one of the purchasers, Mr. Samshul Huda Khan, had acquired British citizenship prior to the transaction. The complaint suggested that the land should be vested in the State Government due to a lack of requisite permissions, a situation governed by Sections 104 and 105 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
Despite the clear stipulations in Rule 103 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, that only the Sub-Divisional Officer can declare such transfers void, the District Magistrate took it upon himself to pass orders, which the High Court found to be outside his jurisdiction. The petitioner's counsel successfully argued that the Collector lacked the authority to make such determinations, a position supported by previous judgments, including those in Smt. Meenu Seth v. State of U.P. and Sudhir Kumar Jain v. State of U.P.
Acknowledging these precedents, the court reiterated that jurisdiction over such matters rests solely with the Sub-Divisional Officer, rendering the Collector's orders legally unsustainable. Justice Arun Kumar’s judgment underscored the importance of adhering to jurisdictional boundaries to maintain the integrity of legal processes.
The court's decision not only sets aside the impugned orders but also allows the State to proceed against the petitioner, provided they adhere to the correct legal procedures. This ruling serves as a crucial reminder of the significance of jurisdictional adherence under the U.P. Revenue Code.
Bottom Line:
Under Rule 103 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, only the Sub-Divisional Officer is empowered to declare transfers void under Section 104/105 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Orders passed by the Collector without jurisdiction are unsustainable in law.
Statutory provision(s): U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 Sections 104, 105, U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 Rule 103
