Allahabad HC Quashes ADM's Restraint Order, Costs on DM and ADM Personally for Acting Without Jurisdiction Under U.P. Revenue Code

The Lucknow Bench held that proceedings under Sections 104 and 105 of the U.P. Revenue Code can only be initiated before the Sub-Divisional Officer, not the District Magistrate, and imposed Rs 20,000 costs each on the District Magistrate, ADM (Judicial), and the advocate who filed the complaint.

Justice Pankaj Bhatia, sitting singly at the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, allowed a writ petition filed by Niwas Colonisers Pvt. Ltd. and quashed the entirety of Case No. 435 of 2026 pending before the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Lucknow. The ADM had, on 10 March 2026, restrained the petitioner from selling land or raising constructions, without recording any prima facie satisfaction, after a personal complaint was filed by an advocate who admittedly had no connection with the land. The court found that the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in the first place, and that the ADM had acted without any application of mind. Costs of Rs 20,000 each were imposed personally on the District Magistrate, the ADM (Judicial), and Respondent No. 4.

The Complaint That Started the Proceedings

Respondent No. 4, described in the judgment as an advocate practising at Lucknow, served a legal notice dated 27 November 2025 on Niwas Colonisers Pvt. Ltd. The notice alleged that construction and sale activities were being carried out over land whose records were registered with the Ceiling Department in Form No. 6 and Form 45, Khata No. 305. It further alleged that forged orders had been passed, that properties had been purchased illegally, and that mutation had been carried out on a suspicious basis. The petitioner was warned to stop all development activity, failing which legal action would follow. The notice was sent under registered cover on 28 November 2025. The petitioner ignored it.

Respondent No. 4 then filed a personal complaint before the District Magistrate, Lucknow on 29 January 2026, under Sections 104 and 105 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. In that complaint, Respondent No. 4 was shown as plaintiff, Niwas Colonisers as respondent, and the State of U.P. was also arrayed as a respondent. The District Magistrate registered the case by an undated order and transmitted it to the ADM (Judicial), Lucknow, where it received Case No. 435 of 2026 (Computerised Case No. D202610460000435).

On 10 March 2026, the ADM (Judicial) passed an interim order restraining the petitioner from selling the land or raising any constructions until further orders, and directed that the revenue records be modified accordingly. The ADM did so without recording any satisfaction on prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable hardship. Niwas Colonisers challenged that order, and the entire proceedings, before the High Court.

What Sections 104 and 105 of the U.P. Revenue Code Provide

Section 104 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 declares void every lease or transfer of interest in any holding made by a bhumidhar or asami in contravention of the Code. Section 105 sets out the consequences: the subject matter of such a void transfer vests in the State Government free from all encumbrances, the interests of both transferor and transferee stand extinguished, and the Collector is empowered to take possession and evict unauthorised occupants.

The procedural machinery for invoking these provisions is laid down in Rule 103 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016. Rule 103(1) requires the Lekhpal to submit a report to the Sub-Divisional Officer containing the particulars specified in Rule 97(1). Rule 103(2) then mandates that on receiving the Lekhpal's report, or on information received otherwise, the Sub-Divisional Officer shall call upon the parties to the transfer to show cause why action under Section 104 read with Section 105 should not be taken. After hearing the parties and making such inquiries as necessary, the Sub-Divisional Officer may, under Rule 103(3), declare that the transfer is void and that the land vests in the State. Rule 103(4) directs the Sub-Divisional Officer to correct the revenue records accordingly.

The petitioner's counsel argued that this scheme vests jurisdiction exclusively in the Sub-Divisional Officer, not the District Magistrate. Reliance was placed on earlier judgments of this court in Sudheer Kumar Jain v. State of U.P. and others (Writ Petition (C) No. 18585 of 2023, decided 10 August 2023), Rakesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and others (decided 28 February 2012, reported at 2012 (116) R.D. 69), and Smt. Meenu Seth v. State of U.P. and 7 others (decided 21 July 2023), all of which had considered the question of jurisdictional competence under these provisions.

How the Court Reasoned on Jurisdiction

Justice Bhatia read Rule 103 closely. The plain text of Rule 103(1) requires the Lekhpal to report to the Sub-Divisional Officer. Rule 103(2) then places the obligation to issue show-cause notices on the Sub-Divisional Officer. Rule 103(3) and (4) vest the power to declare a transfer void and to correct revenue records in the Sub-Divisional Officer alone. The court concluded that “an application for invoking the mandate of Sections 104 and 105 of The U.P. Revenue Code can be initiated only on moving an application before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned.”

The State's standing counsel, to his credit, conceded that jurisdiction under Rule 103 vests only with the Sub-Divisional Officer and that the impugned order had been passed after the District Magistrate registered the case. The court accepted that the State is empowered to protect its interest in land transferred in contravention of the Code, but held that this must be done strictly in accordance with law and not on the basis of information supplied by strangers with no locus standi.

The court found that the District Magistrate had entertained the complaint directly without checking whether any jurisdiction was vested in him. The ADM (Judicial), to whom the file was transmitted, then passed a restraint order without recording any satisfaction on the merits of the claim. Both actions were held to be dehors the law and without jurisdiction. The court recorded that the requirements of Rule 103(2) and (3) had not been followed by either officer.

The Court's Assessment of Respondent No. 4

Justice Bhatia was pointed in his assessment of Respondent No. 4. The court noted that he claimed to be an advocate, admittedly had no concern with the land in question, and had filed the personal complaint without disclosing any locus standi or interest. The court found that he had served a threatening legal notice, and thereafter instituted proceedings before an authority that had no jurisdiction. The judgment records that “the respondent No. 4 was attempting to browbeat and black-mail the petitioner” and had done so with the intent of derailing the development proposed by the petitioner over the land.

The opening paragraphs of the judgment frame the matter as one that “highlights the manner in which, an Advocate supposed to be an Officer of the Court has misused his powers to harass the citizens.” The court's finding that Respondent No. 4 had misused his knowledge and position as an advocate informed the decision to impose costs on him personally.

Costs Imposed Personally on Three Parties

The court imposed costs of Rs 20,000 each on Respondent No. 4, the District Magistrate, Lucknow, and the ADM (Judicial), Lucknow. The costs are to be paid to the petitioner within six weeks from the date of the order. The court directed that the costs payable by the District Magistrate and the ADM (Judicial) must come from their personal accounts and not from the State corpus.

A specific recovery mechanism was built in for Respondent No. 4: if he fails to pay within one month, the District Magistrate is directed to recover the amount from him as arrears of land revenue and pay it to the petitioner. For the District Magistrate and the ADM (Judicial), the court stated that failure to deposit the costs within six weeks would be treated as contempt of court.

Order

The writ petition was allowed. The order dated 10 March 2026 passed by the ADM (Judicial), Lucknow, and the entire proceedings in Case No. 435 of 2026 (Computerised Case No. D202610460000435), styled as R.P. Singh v. Niwas Colonisers Pvt. Ltd. and others under Sections 104 and 105 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, were quashed. Costs of Rs 20,000 each were imposed personally on Respondent No. 4, the District Magistrate, Lucknow, and the ADM (Judicial), Lucknow, payable to the petitioner within six weeks, with the contempt and recovery directions noted above.