2026 INSC 395

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.16855/2019 Page 1 of 15

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4633 OF 2026

(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CIVIL) NO.16855 OF 2019)

BABU SINGH …. APPELLANT

VERSUS

CONSOLIDATION OFFICER

AND OTHERS

…. RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA , J.

1) Leave granted.

2) The lis at hand concerns the validity of the change in categorisation of

certain land situated in District Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh, the subsequent

grant of pattas in favour of the appellant and the consequential ripple of

events that ensued.

3) The backdrop of the present dispute is that prior to 31.10.1992, the

subject land in dispute was recorded in Category-6 in the khatauni in terms

of paragraph A-124 of the U.P Land Records Manual

1

, which classifies the

lands within a village. Category-6 inter alia denotes barren or uncultivated

land including the lands covered with water, sites, roads, buildings and

other non-agricultural uses. The area in which the subject land is situated

1

Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Manual’

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.16855/2019 Page 2 of 15

is governed by the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and

Land Reforms Act, 1950

2

.

4) Category-5 under the Manual denotes cultivable land (Krishi Yogya

Bhumi) with sub-categories such as new fallow (Navin Parti/Parti Jadid), old

fallow (Purani Parti/Parti Kadim), among other categories.

5) On 05.04.1992, the Lekhpal submitted a report stating that the Land

Management Committee (Gaon Sabha) had resolved to change the category

of the subject land from Category -6 to Category-5. Similar reports

recommending the change were submitted by the Revenue Inspector on

12.04.1992 and the Naib Tehsildar on 16.04.1992. Based on these reports,

the Tehsildar recommended to the Sub-Divisional Officer on 31.10.1992 that

the land be reclassified as Category-5, and the Sub-Divisional Officer

approved the said recommendation, effecting the change, leading to grant of

pattas to the appellant and certain other individuals. Their names were also

recorded in the relevant khatauni on basis of such pattas.

6) Subsequently, the village in which the subject land is situated was

brought under consolidation operations through a notification issued under

Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 2004. During the

consolidation proceedings, the land settled in favour of the appellant by the

lease dated 31.10.1992 was assigned a valuation, and the corresponding

chaks were carved out under Section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of

Holdings Act. The appellant’s name continued to be recorded in the

proceedings under Section 23, and possession of the chaks was delivered on

01.07.2013. The appellant claim s to have remained in continuous

2

Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Abolition Act’

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.16855/2019 Page 3 of 15

possession of the land since the grant of pattas and thereafter of the chaks

allotted during consolidation.

7) After the grant of pattas, certain individuals, including one Shiv

Karan, initiated proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Abolition Act,

before the Collector, Hardoi, seeking cancellation of pattas issued to 68

persons, including the appellant. The Additional Collector, Hardoi, rejected

these proceedings by an order dated 19.08.1994, holding that there was no

prima facie evidence establishing execution of the pattas. A revision petition

against the order dated 19.08.1994 was dismissed by the Additional

Commissioner, Lucknow Division, on 04.08.1999.

8) Subsequently, during consolidation proceedings, the Consolidator

submitted a report dated 08.02.2016 to the Assistant Consolidation Officer,

stating that the land had been recorded in 1379 Fasli as public utility land,

including Khalihan and pasture land, referable to Section 132 of the

Abolition Act, in respect of which pattas could not lawfully be granted. The

report concluded that the appellant’s name had been erroneously recorded

and ought to be expunged.

9) The Assistant Consolidation Officer forwarded the said report to the

Consolidation Officer on the same day i.e., 08.02.2016. In the meantime, an

application under Section 198(4) of the Abolition Act was filed on

30.05.2016 by the State and the Land Management Committee before the

Collector seeking cancellation of the pattas . Instead of proceeding with the

said application, the District Collector referred the matter to the

consolidation authorities. On the basis of such reference made under the

order dated 27.10.2017, the Consolidation Officer passed an order dated

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.16855/2019 Page 4 of 15

12.02.2019 expunging the name of the appellant as the bhumidhar with

non-transferable rights and ordered the land to be recorded in its original

khata. It is this order which came to be challenged before the High Court.

10) Upon careful consideration, the High Court dismissed the writ

petition, holding the subject land as public utility land under Section 132 of

Abolition Act, and that no bhumidhari rights or agricultural pattas could be

granted in respect of such land . The approval granted by the Sub-Divisional

Officer on 31.10.1992 re-categorising the land was without statutory

authority and could not validate the pattas. The pattas were held illegal,

incapable of conferring rights, and the consolidation authorities were

justified in correcting the revenue records. Taking exception to the judgment

passed by the High Court, the appellant now seeks refuge of this Court.

11) The learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the

disputed land was admittedly recorded in Category-6, but its categorisation

was subsequently changed to Category-5 by the Sub-Divisional Officer vide

order dated 31.10.1992. It was contended that the High Court’s view that

the Sub-Divisional Officer lacked the jurisdiction to effect such change is

erroneous. In support of his submission, reliance was placed on Paragraph

Ka-155-Ka of the Manual, contending that the Collector is empowered to

maintain the record of rights and for that purpose make necessary

amendments therein. It was further urged that Section 227(4) of the U.P

Land Revenue Act specifically empowers the Assistant Collector in charge of

a sub-division of a district to order alteration in the annual register under

Section 33 of the Act.

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.16855/2019 Page 5 of 15

12) Learned senior counsel for the appellant further asserted that the

proceedings initiated on the basis of the report of the consolidator dated

08.02.2016, as well as the application filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh

and the Land Management committee seeking cancellation of the pattas

granted in favour of the appellant, were barred by the principle of res

judicata. It was contended that by order dated 19.08.1994, the Additional

Collector, Hardoi, had rejected the application seeking cancellation of the

lease granted in favour of the appellant. The revision preferred against the

said order dated 19.08.1994 was rejected by the Additional Commissioner,

Lucknow Division vide order dated 04.08.1999.

13) Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the

impugned judgment and submitted that the subject land was recorded as

Category-6 land which, in terms of Paragraph A-124 of the Manual,

includes barren land and land covered with water, sites, roads, railways and

other non-agricultural lands.

14) It was further submitted that the land in question is referable to

Section 132 of the Abolition Act, which prohibits the conferment of

bhumidhari rights in respect of such land. The learned counsel contended

that bhumidhari rights can only accrue in respect of land that is referable to

Section 117 of the Act.

15) It was also argued that the only form of patta permissible in respect of

the land covered under section 132 is an Asami Patta, which is limited to a

period of Five years. The pattas granted to the appellant were not Asami

Pattas and, in any event, if they were to be treated as such, their tenure had

long expired.

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.16855/2019 Page 6 of 15

16) It was further submitted that the appellants reliance on provisions

contained in Clause 9 of the Paragraph K a-155-Ka of the Manual

empowering the Assistant Collector/Sub-Divisional Officer to change the

category of the land is misplaced since the said provision is applicable to

existing tenure holder or Khattedars of the plot whose names have already

been entered in the Revenue records.

17) In view of the aforesaid submissions, it was advanced that 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. On these grounds, it

was submitted that the present Appeal deserves to be dismissed.

18) Heard the learned counsel for either side and perused the material on

record. The only question before us is whether the High Court was correct in

holding that the Sub-Divisional Officer lacked the jurisdiction to change the

categorisation of the subject land and consequently rendering the patta in

favour of the appellant as void ab-initio.

19) Before adverting to the issue of the change in categorisation of the

subject land, a beneficial digression to the statutory scheme of the Abolition

Act is apposite. Section 129 of the Abolition Act enumerates the classes of

tenure holders recognised under the statute, namely: (i) bhumidhar with

transferable rights; (ii) bhumidhar with non-transferable rights; (iii) asami;

and (iv) Government lessee.

20) The mechanism for admission to the land is provided under Section

195 of the Abolition Act. The said provision stipulates that the Land

Management Committee, with the previous approval of the Assistant

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.16855/2019 Page 7 of 15

Collector in charge of the sub-division, may admit any person as a

bhumidhar with non-transferable rights to a land which is vested in the

Gaon Sabha. However, such admission is with a caveat that the land must

not fall within any of the categories specified under Section 132 of the

Abolition Act.

21) Section 117 of the Abolition Act provides for the vesting of certain

lands, including vacant and other lands in the village, in the Gaon Sabha or

other local authorities. Such lands, once vested in the Gaon Sabha, are

administered by the Land Management Committee in accordance with the

provisions of the Act.

22) Section 132 of the Abolition Act assumes crucial significance to the

present dispute. The said provision expressly stipulates that bhumidhar

rights shall not accrue in respect of certain lands. The relevant portion is

reproduced herein below for ready reference :

“132. Land in which bhumidhari rights shall not

accrue.—Notwithstanding anything contained in

Section 131, but without prejudice to the provisions of

Section 19, bhumidhari rights shall not accrue in—

(a) pasture lands or lands covered by water and

used for the purpose of growing singhara or other

produce or land in the bed of a river and used for

casual or occasional cultivation;

(b) such tracts of shifting or unstable cultivation

as the State Government may specify by

notification in the Gazette; and

(c) lands declared by the Slate Government by

notification in the Official Gazette, to be intended

or set apart for taungya plantation or grove lands

of a Gaon Sabha or a Local Authority or land

acquired or held for a public purpose and in

particular and without prejudice to the generality

of this clause—

(i) lands set apart for military encamping grounds;

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.16855/2019 Page 8 of 15

(ii) lands included within railway or canal

boundaries;

(iii) lands situate within the limits of any

cantonment;

(iv) lands included in sullage farms or trenching

grounds belonging as such to a local authority;

(v) lands acquired by a town improvement trust in

accordance with a scheme sanctioned under

Section 42 of the U.P. Town Improvement Act,

1919 (U.P. Act VII of 1919) or by a municipality for

a purpose mentioned in Clause (a) or Clause (c) of

Section 8 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (U.P.

Act VII of 1916); and

(vi) lands set apart for public purposes under the

U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (U.P. Act

V of 1954).”

(emphasis supplied)

23) It is an admitted position that the land in question was originally

recorded as Category-6 land in the revenue records. This is fortified by the

report of the Lekhpal as well as the revenue entries placed on record. As

noted already, Paragraph A-124 of the Manual classifies Category-6 land as

barren land, including land covered with water, sites, roads, railways,

buildings and other lands put to non-agricultural use.

24) The report of the Consolidator dated 08.02.2016 further records that

the subject land was entered in the revenue records as land meant for

public utility purposes, such as khalihan and pasture land. While Category-

6 may encompass various forms of non -agricultural land, the material on

record clearly indicates that the subject land was specifically recorded as

khalihan and pasture land, both of which are communal lands falling within

the prohibitory ambit of Section 132 of the Abolition Act. A conjoint reading

of Paragraph A-124 of the Manual and Section 132 of the Abolition Act

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.16855/2019 Page 9 of 15

makes it evident that such lands fall squarely within the class of lands

excluded from the conferment of bhumidhari rights and do not fall within

the category of lands contemplated under Section 117 of the Abolition Act

for settlement.

25) Once the land is referable to Section 132 of the Abolition Act,

bhumidhari rights cannot accrue in respect thereof. At best, such land may

be temporarily settled by way of an Asami patta. Arguendo, even if it were

assumed that a patta had been granted in favour of the appellant in respect

of the subject land, the same could only have been in the nature of an

Asami patta. In terms of Rule 176 -A of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari

Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952, the term of an Asami patta is

limited to a period of only five years. Consequently, even on that

assumption, the patta in favour of the appellant would stand expired upon

completion of the said period.

26) We may now advert to the contention advanced by the learned senior

counsel for the appellant that the categorisation of the subject land was

subsequently changed from Category-6 to Category-5 by the Sub-Divisional

Officer vide order dated 31.10.1992, and that the grant of patta in favour of

the appellant was made thereafter. In support of this submission, reliance

has been placed upon Paragraph Ka -155-Ka of the Uttar Pradesh Land

Records Manual to contend that the Sub -Divisional Officer possessed the

jurisdiction to effect such change in categorisation. The relevant provision is

reproduced herein below :

“K-15-K - Competent officer to pass order:-

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.16855/2019 Page 10 of 15

Any change or entry affecting the rights and titles of the Khatedar's shall be

performed by virtue of an order passed by such officer, who have been mentioned

against each of the following heads.

1. Entry pertaining to undisputed

succession rights

Bhulekh Inspector or

Tehsildar

2. Entry pertaining to new

Khatedars based upon the lease

executed by the Land

Management Committee.

Bhulekh Inspector

3. Entry in cases of transfer by the

Bhumidhar having transferable

rights.

Tehsildar

4. Entry in case of surrender Tehsildar

5. Entries in case of desertion. Tehsildar

6. Disputed cases of succession Tehsildar

7. Entry regarding change in

malgujari or lagan.

Tehsildar

8. Land related to Kachhar which

has been included in village, its

numbering and recording and

entries related to water flow.

Assistant officer of the In

charge Pargana

9. Entries pertaining to transfer

of land from one

class/category of Khata to

another category/class of

Khata.

Assistant Collector

10. Entry regarding, new Khatedars

without registered lease

11. Entries of new Khatedars on the

basis of other registered lease

deed other than the lease

executed by the land

management committee.

Tehsildar

12. Any other changes or transaction

affecting the rights and titles

which do not fall under column

no 1 to 11.

In charge officer of

Pargana/Assistant Collector

2. Intimation of orders passed pertaining to column no 1 to 2 shall be

provided to the Lekhpal by the Bhulekh Inspector whereas intimation

pertaining to column no 3 to 12 shall be given by the Registrar (Revenue

Inspector).”

27) The U.P Land Records Manual is a collection of rules framed under

Section 234 of the U.P Land Revenue Act,1901 as well as the instructions

issued by the State Government in relation to various matters. In essence,

the Manual provides the rules and procedures for preparation and

maintenance of land records.

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.16855/2019 Page 11 of 15

28) At first blush, the submission advanced by the learned senior counsel

for the appellant appears attractive. However, upon a closer scrutiny, the

contention does not merit acceptance. A bare perusal of Paragraph Ka-155-

Ka of the Manual would reveal that the said provision merely prescribes the

competent authority for effecting entries in the revenue records affecting the

rights and titles of the khatedars. In particular, clause (9) thereof, which

provides for entries pertaining to transfer of land from one class/category of

khata to another category/class of khata, which cannot be construed as

conferring jurisdiction upon the Assistant Collector or the Sub-Divisional

Officer to alter the category of the land itself in the revenue records. The

provision only contemplates a change in the nature or category of the khata,

that is, the tenure entry relating to the holder and not a change in the

category of the land. The principal objective of the provision is to rectify or

alter administrative anomalies in the classification of khata. Khata classifies

the type of tenure holder as observed under Section 129 of the Abolition Act.

It is also to be noted that the provision applies to any entries affecting the

rights and titles of khatedars who have already been recorded in the

revenue records and has no application to the change of category of the land

whatsoever. Thus, the reliance placed upon paragraph Ka-155-Ka to justify

the re-categorisation of land from Category-6 to Category-5 is clearly

misconceived and untenable in law.

29) Even otherwise, the Abolition Act, does not confer any authority

upon the Sub-Divisional Officer to alter the category of land so as to bring it

outside the prohibitory ambit of Section 132. The only mechanism

contemplated by the Abolition Act for any conversion of land category is

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.16855/2019 Page 12 of 15

found in Section 117(6), which empowers the State Government —and the

State Government alone—to resume land from the Gaon Sabha and make a

fresh declaration vesting such land in a local authority. While this provision

does not expressly authorize an alteration in the category of the land, such

power can be inferred when read conjointly with Section 77(2) of the U.P.

Land Revenue Code, 2006, which explicitly permits the State Government to

change the class of public utility land in exceptional cases and only subject

to stringent safeguards: recording reasons in writing, reserving equivalent

land for the same purpose, and considering location and public utility value.

This deliberate restriction to the State Government alone demonstrates the

legislative recognition that no subordinate revenue authority possesses such

power. The critical principle of statutory interpretation—that what cannot be

done directly cannot be done indirectly (Quando aliquid prohibetur ex

directo, prohibetur et per obliquum)—is fundamental here. Section 132 of

the Abolition Act, expressly prohibits the conferment of bhumidhari rights in

respect of public utility lands, including pasture lands and khalihan. If the

submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant were to be accepted, it

would permit subordinate officers to circumvent this express prohibition

through the simple expedient of re-categorising land in revenue entries,

thereby defeating the legislative intent entirely. Such an interpretation must

be rejected as it would render the statutory prohibition nugatory and enable

indirectly what the statute forbids directly.

30) Now that it is cogent that the Sub-Divisional Officer’s action of altering

the category of the subject land was undertaken without jurisdiction, the

legal consequences necessarily follow. The grant of patta in favour of the

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.16855/2019 Page 13 of 15

appellant is inextricably founded upon this invalid re-categorisation. The

land continues to retain its original character as Category-6 land, falling in

the class of lands referable to Section 132 of the Abolition Act. 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 and are

treated to be void ab initio.

31) The aforesaid conclusion is further echoed by the observations of this

Court in Hinch Lal Tiwari vs. Kamala Devi and others

3

, wherein it was

emphasised that the lands meant for public utility and community purposes

must be zealously protected and cannot be diverted for public use. This

Court underscored that such resources constitute material assets of the

community and are essentially for maintaining ecological balance and public

welfare.

32) This principle was further reiterated in Jagpal Singh and others vs.

State of Punjab and others

4

wherein it was observed that land recorded

for public utility purposes must not be allowed to be allotted to private

individuals, notwithstanding any intervening administrative process or

orders. This Court recognised that public utility land cannot be legitimately

converted for private benefits through administrative manipulation, and that

consolidation proceedings themselves cannot be employed as a vehicle to

circumvent statutory protections afforded to communal resources. The

present case exemplifies precisely such an attempt wherein the subject land,

despite its character as Khalihan and pasture land meant for public utility,

3

(2001) 6 SCC 496 (para 13)

4

(2011) 11 SCC 396 (paras 18 to 21)

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.16855/2019 Page 14 of 15

was sought to be diverted through an invalid re -categorisation. Such

diversion of public utility land through administrative processes cannot be

countenanced by law.

33) We shall now advert to the second limb of the submission advanced

on behalf of the appellant, namely that the proceedings initiated on the

basis of the report of the Consolidator dated 08.02.2016, as well as the

application filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Land Management

Committee seeking cancellation of the pattas granted in favour of the

appellants, were barred by the principle of res judicata, in view of the earlier

proceedings instituted under Section 198(4) of the Abolition Act, before the

Additional Collector, Hardoi. It was urged that the said proceedings

culminated into an order dated 19.08.1994 rejecting the application seeking

cancellation of the pattas, and that the revision preferred against the said

order was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, on

04.08.1999.

34) A perusal of the order dated 19.08.1994 passed by the Additional

Collector, however, makes it abundantly clear that the said authority

declined to proceed with the application on the premise that there was no

material on record to establish the execution of any lease in favour of the

concerned persons including the appellant. The Additional Collector

specifically recorded that there was no prima facie evidence available on

record to prove that the pattas in respect of the land in question had been

executed. Consequently, the authority held that unless the existence of the

lease itself was proved, the question of considering cancellation thereof did

not arise.

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.16855/2019 Page 15 of 15

35) Thus, the earlier proceedings were not adjudicated on the validity or

legality of the pattas on merits. The application was dismissed at the

threshold on the ground that the execution of the pattas had not been

established. The revision preferred against the said order was also dismissed

without entering into the merits of the matter, merely observing that no

irregularity appeared in the order passed by the Additional Collector.

36) In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the issue relating to the

validity of the pattas granted in favour of the appellant was directly and

substantially in issue and finally decided in the earlier proceedings. Since

the existence and legality of the pattas were never adjudicated on merits, the

principle of res judicata would have no application to the facts of the present

case.

37) As it manifests from the above discussion, we find no patent illegality

in the impugned judgment , and thus, it requires no interference.

Accordingly, the Civil Appeal is sans merit and stands dismissed.

38) No orders as to costs.

…………………..........................J.

(PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA )

.………………............................J.

(N.V. ANJARIA)

NEW DELHI;

APRIL 21, 2026.