SC: Public utility land can't be reclassified for private pattas in UP

In a significant judgment, a bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria dismissed an appeal filed by Babu Singh, affirming the Allahabad High Court's decision which had upheld the expunging of his name from revenue records during consolidation proceedings.

The apex court was dealing with a dispute arising from the reclassification of land originally recorded as Category-6 -- denoting barren or non-agricultural land -- to Category-5 (cultivable land), based on administrative recommendations in 1992, following which pattas were granted to the appellant and others.

However, during consolidation proceedings, authorities found that the land was recorded as 'khalihan' and pasture land, falling within the ambit of Section 132 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, which bars conferment of bhumidhari rights on such public utility land.

Upholding the Allahabad High Court's view, the top court held that the Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to alter the category of land in a manner that defeats statutory prohibitions.

"A bare perusal of Article 155 of the Manual would reveal that the said provision merely prescribes the competent authority for effecting entries in the revenue records... and cannot be construed as conferring jurisdiction upon the Assistant Collector or the Sub-Divisional Officer to alter the category of the land itself," the apex court judgment said.

Rejecting the appellant's reliance on provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Land Records Manual, the Supreme Court clarified that such provisions relate only to entries affecting tenure holders and do not empower authorities to change the intrinsic nature of land classification.

"The Sub-Divisional Officer does not have the authority to change the category of the land from Category-6 to Category-5 and the subsequent grant of pattas on the basis of such change is illegal and void ab initio," it held.

The apex court said that once land falls under Section 132 -- which includes pasture land and land reserved for public purposes -- no bhumidhari rights can accrue.

"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," it noted.

The Justice Mishra-led bench also rejected the plea that fresh proceedings were barred by "res judicata" (a matter adjudged), saying that earlier proceedings in 1994 had not examined the legality of the pattas on merits.

"The earlier proceedings were not adjudicated on the validity or legality of the pattas on merits... the principle of res judicata would have no application," the apex court said.

Reinforcing the need to protect community resources, the Supreme Court referred to its earlier judgments and cautioned against diversion of public utility land through administrative processes.

"Such resources constitute material assets of the community and are essentially for maintaining ecological balance and public welfare," the judgment said, adding that public utility land "must not be allowed to be allotted to private individuals, notwithstanding any intervening administrative process".

Finding no infirmity in the Allahabad High Court's judgment, the apex court dismissed the appeal, holding it to be "sans merit".

- IANS