The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed that only the Sub-Divisional Officer possesses exclusive statutory authority to declare a property transfer void under Rule 103 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016. Any order passed by the Collector or Additional Collector in such proceedings is legally invalid, regardless of the nature of the alleged violation. This ruling clarifies a critical jurisdictional boundary in land revenue administration and has immediate implications for all pending and future proceedings under Sections 104 and 105 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Kulliyatul Banatir Razviya Educational And Welfare Society, a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, operates a Madarsa on land purchased through a registered sale deed dated 28.08.2014. The sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner society and one Sarparast, Samshul Huda Khan, who at the time of the transaction was an Indian citizen. Subsequently, in 2013, Samshul Huda Khan acquired British citizenship. Abdul Karim, the predecessor in interest of respondents 4 and 5, filed a complaint before the District Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar, under Sections 104 and 105 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, alleging that the purchase of land in the name of a foreign national without prior State Government permission rendered the transaction void under Section 90 read with Section 104 of the Code. The complaint sought vesting of the land in the State Government.
Key Facts
- The sale deed was executed on 28.08.2014
- Samshul Huda Khan became a British citizen in 2013, prior to the sale
- The complaint under Sections 104/105 was filed by Abdul Karim, predecessor of respondents 4 and 5
- The land is used for educational purposes by a registered society
- No prior permission from the State Government was obtained for acquisition by a foreign national
Procedural History
- 12.02.2024: District Magistrate (Collector) passed an order declaring the sale deed void and vesting the land in the State Government
- 10.07.2025: Commissioner, Division Basti, allowed the petitioner’s revision and remanded the matter to the District Magistrate for fresh adjudication
- 14.11.2025: District Magistrate again passed an order declaring the transfer void and vesting the land in the State, despite the remand
- 24.04.2026: Commissioner, Division Basti, dismissed the petitioner’s second revision petition
- 15.05.2026: Writ Petition No. 17029 of 2026 filed before the Allahabad High Court
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the orders dated 14.11.2025 and 24.04.2026, restoration of the land to its lawful possession, and a declaration that the Collector had no jurisdiction to pass such orders under Rule 103 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Collector or Additional Collector has jurisdiction to pass an order declaring a property transfer void under Rule 103 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, or whether such power is exclusively vested in the Sub-Divisional Officer.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel, led by Senior Counsel G.K. Singh and Sri M.A. Ausaf, relied on two Coordinate Bench judgments of the Allahabad High Court: Smt. Meenu Seth v. State of U.P. (Writ-C No. 21618 of 2022, decided on 21.07.2023) and Sudhir Kumar Jain v. State of U.P. (Writ-C No. 18585 of 2023, decided on 10.08.2023). They argued that Rule 103(3) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 explicitly vests the authority to declare a transfer void under Section 104 in the Sub-Divisional Officer. They contended that the Collector’s role under Section 4(8) and Section 13(3) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is supervisory and does not permit delegation of functions specifically assigned by statute to the Sub-Divisional Officer. They further cited Rakesh Kumar v. State of U.P. (2012) 116 RD 69 to establish that statutory functions assigned to subordinate officers cannot be usurped by their superiors, even if the latter are controlling authorities.
For the Respondent
The Additional Advocate General for the State, assisted by Sri Anubhav Chandra, conceded that the order dated 14.11.2025 passed by the Additional Collector was without jurisdiction, in light of the binding precedents cited by the petitioner. The State did not contest the legal position that Rule 103(3) exclusively vests authority in the Sub-Divisional Officer.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed examination of Rule 103 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, which clearly delineates the procedural mechanism for declaring a transfer void. Sub-rule (3) states: "After hearing the parties and making such inquiries as may be considered necessary, if the Sub-Divisional Officer is satisfied that the transfer in question is void under section 104, he shall declare that..." The language is unambiguous and leaves no room for interpretation that any other officer may exercise this power.
"It is only the Sub-Divisional Officer who has been specifically mentioned under the Rule 103(3) U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 for dealing with the provisions contained under Section 104 and 105 of the U.P. Revenue Code of 2006."
The Court emphasized that statutory functions assigned to a specific officer cannot be assumed by another, even if the latter is a superior authority. The Collector’s powers under Section 4(8) and Section 13(3) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are general supervisory powers and do not override specific statutory delegations. The Court distinguished this from administrative delegation, noting that Rule 103 is a substantive adjudicatory function requiring specific statutory authorization.
The Court further relied on Sudhir Kumar Jain, which held that where the law assigns a function to an Assistant Collector First Class, the Collector cannot assume that function even if he is the controlling authority. The same principle applies here: the Sub-Divisional Officer is the designated adjudicator under Rule 103, and no other officer, including the Collector, may exercise that power.
The Court noted that the State had conceded the jurisdictional defect, rendering any further contestation unnecessary. The orders dated 14.11.2025 and 24.04.2026 were therefore legally unsustainable.
The Verdict
The writ petition was allowed. The orders dated 14.11.2025 and 24.04.2026 passed by the District Magistrate and Commissioner, respectively, were set aside. The State respondents are at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings under Rule 103 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, but only through the competent authority - the Sub-Divisional Officer. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Sub-Divisional Officer Is the Sole Adjudicator
- Practitioners must verify the authority issuing orders under Rule 103 before filing appeals or writs
- Any order passed by a Collector, Additional Collector, or District Magistrate under Rule 103 is void ab initio
- Challenges to such orders should focus on jurisdictional defect, not merits of the transfer
Jurisdictional Defects Cannot Be Curated by Remand
- Remand by a higher authority does not cure a jurisdictional error
- If the original authority lacked competence, the remanded proceeding must be assigned to the correct officer
- Repeated orders by the same incompetent authority, as occurred here, are legally impermissible
Statutory Functions Cannot Be Assumed by Superiors
- The hierarchy of revenue officers does not permit assumption of functions assigned by statute to subordinate officers
- Even if the Collector is the controlling authority, he cannot exercise functions reserved for Sub-Divisional Officers
- This principle applies across land revenue statutes, including the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act and the U.P. Revenue Code
