Asst collector first class competent authority under UP Revenue Code to declare farm-land transaction void HC

Prayagraj (UP), May 16 (PTI) The Allahabad High Court has ruled that under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, the assistant collector (first class) is the competent authority to declare any transaction of agricultural land void under section 166, if it is contravention of sections 154 and 157A, and the district magistrate has no jurisdiction to do so.
    With the above observation, Justice Arun Kumar set aside an order passed by the Sant Kabir Nagar DM and its subsequent confirmation issued by the commissioner, Basti division, whereby a sale deed in favour of a society that had constructed the Al-Huda Madarsa on purchased land at Khalilabad was declared void as it was executed in the name of the society and its chairman, Samsul Huda Khan, is a foreign national.
    While declaring the sale deed as void, both the DM and the commissioner had directed to vest the entire property in the State. The order was passed while allowing a writ petition filed by the Kulliyatul Banatir Razviya Educational and Welfare Society.
    In its order on Friday, the court observed, "A plain and simple reading of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act makes it clear that the collector, including the additional collector as well as the assistant collector, is authorised to discharge the powers and duties conferred upon him under the Act."
    "The aforesaid Act does not confer upon the collector (DM) the power to declare a transaction to be void under section 166 of the Act, being violative of sections 154 or 157A of the Act. Such power is vested only in the assistant collector first class (SDM), who may be authorised by the state government to discharge all or any of the functions of the DM but converse to it is not permitted," it added.
    The court further said that "the duties and functions assigned therein to the SDM under law are not to be discharged by the DM even though he may be the controlling authority of the SDM. The DM is not authorised to take over the functions assigned to the SDMs. Thus, the DM is not supposed to discharge the functions specifically assigned to the SDM under the Act, including that of declaring a transfer to be void".
    The petitioner is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, running a madarsa. The society purchased the land in dispute through a registered sale deed on August 28, 2014. The sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner society and its "sarparast" (chairman), who was Samshul Huda Khan at that point of time.
    Subsequently, one Abdul Karim filed a complaint before the Sant Kabir Nagar DM, alleging that as Khan had become a British citizen in 2013, the purchase of immovable property in India in his name without the requisite permission of the state government was void in accordance with section 90, read with section 104, of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, and as such, the land may be vested in the state government.
    The DM himself proceeded to decide the said complaint by an order dated February 12, 2024, and directed the vesting of the land in the State, free from all encumbrances.
    Against the said order, the petitioner filed a revision plea before the commissioner, Basti division, which was allowed by an order dated July 10, 2025, and the matter was remanded back to be decided afresh.
    After the remand, the DM, by his order dated November 14, 2025, again held the sale deed to be void as it was executed in the name of Khan, who was a foreign national, and directed the vesting of the entire property in the State.
    Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner again filed a revision plea before the commissioner, Basti division, which was dismissed by an order dated April 24, 2026. Hence, the society filed the writ petition before the high court, challenging the orders of both the DM and the commissioner.
    During the court proceedings, the counsel for the society contended that the entire proceedings have been carried out by the DM, who had no jurisdiction to take a decision as the authority under the relevant rules is vested in the sub-divisional magistrate (SDM).

(This story has not been edited by THE WEEK and is auto-generated from PTI)