Assistant Collector I Class Competent authority under the UP Revenue Act to declare cancellation of transaction of agricultural land: HC

Anand Kumar
By
Anand Kumar
Anand Kumar
Senior Journalist Editor
Anand Kumar is a Senior Journalist at Global India Broadcast News, covering national affairs, education, and digital media. He focuses on fact-based reporting and in-depth analysis...
- Senior Journalist Editor
5 Min Read
#image_title

Prayagraj, the Allahabad High Court held that under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, the Assistant Collector is the competent authority to declare any transaction of agricultural land void under Section 166, if it is in contravention of Sections 154 and 157A, and the District Magistrate has no jurisdiction to do so.

Assistant Collector I Class Competent authority under the UP Revenue Act to declare cancellation of transaction of agricultural land: HC
Assistant Collector I Class Competent authority under the UP Revenue Act to declare cancellation of transaction of agricultural land: HC

With the above observation, Justice Arun Kumar set aside an order passed by Sant Kabir Nagar Municipality and later confirmed by the Basti District Commissioner, whereby a sale deed in favor of the society which had built Al Huda School on land purchased at Khalilabad was declared invalid, as it was executed in the name of the society and its president Samsul Huda Khan, a foreign national.

While declaring the sale contract invalid, both Dubai Municipality and the Commissioner directed that the entire property be transferred to the state. The order was passed while allowing a writ petition filed by the Education and Social Welfare Association of Razavi Girls College.

In its order issued on Friday, the court observed that “a clear 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 empowered to discharge the powers and duties conferred on him under the law.”

“The said Act does not give the Collector the power to declare a transaction void under Section 166 of the Act, as it is in violation of Sections 154 or 157A of the Act. This power is vested only in the Assistant Collector Grade I, who may be authorized by the State Government to assume all or any of the functions of the DM but is not permitted to be spoken to,” it said.

The court further said that “the duties and functions assigned to the DRM under the Act cannot be carried out by the Deputy Minister even though he may be the controlling authority over the DRM. The Minister of Defense is not entitled to assume the functions assigned to the DRM. Therefore, the Minister of Defense is not supposed to undertake the functions specifically assigned to the DRM under the Act, including declaring the transfer invalid.”

The petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and is running a school. The Society purchased the disputed land through a registered sale deed on August 28, 2014. The sale deed was executed in favor of the petitioner Society and the ‘Sarparast’, who was Samshul Huda Khan at that time.

Abdul Karim then filed a complaint before the Sant Kabir Nagar DM, alleging that since Khan had become a British citizen in 2013, the purchase of immovable property in India in his name without obtaining the requisite permission from the state government was void as per Section 90, read with Section 104, of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Act, 2006, and as such, the land may be transferred to the state government.

Dubai Municipality itself took up a decision on the aforementioned complaint by order dated February 12, 2024, and directed that the land be granted to the state free of all encumbrances.

Against the said order, the petitioner filed a review petition before the Basti District Commissioner, which was allowed by order dated July 10, 2025, and the matter was remanded for de novo.

After remand, the mayor, by his order dated November 14, 2025, deemed the deed of sale invalid again because it was executed in the name of Khan, who was a foreign national, and directed that the entire property be granted to the state.

Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner again filed an application for review before the Basti District Commissioner, which was dismissed by order dated April 24, 2026. Hence, the Society filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court, challenging the orders of both the DM and the Commissioner.

During the court proceedings, the association’s lawyer submitted that the entire proceedings had been carried out by the district director, who had no authority to make a decision because the authority under the relevant rules was vested in the sub-divisional judge.

This article was generated from an automated news feed without any modifications to the text.

Share This Article
Anand Kumar
Senior Journalist Editor
Follow:
Anand Kumar is a Senior Journalist at Global India Broadcast News, covering national affairs, education, and digital media. He focuses on fact-based reporting and in-depth analysis of current events.
Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *