Babu Singh vs. Consolidation Officer

REPORTABLE
2026 INSC 395

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

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
1
of paragraph A-124 of the U.P Land Records Manual , 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
MINI
Date: 2026.04.21
16:47:20 IST
Reason:

1
Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Manual’
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.16855/2019 Page 1 of 15

is governed by the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and
2
Land Reforms Act, 1950 .
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 claims to have remained in continuous

2
Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Abolition Act’
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.16855/2019 Page 2 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 3 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 4 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
. It was contended that by order dated 19.08.1994, the Additional
judicata
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 5 of 15

16) It was further submitted that the appellants reliance on provisions
contained in Clause 9 of the Paragraph Ka-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 6 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 :

(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 7 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 8 of 15

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

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 10 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 11 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 12 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
3
Court in Hinch Lal Tiwari vs. Kamala Devi and others , 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.
4
State of Punjab and others 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 13 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 14 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.

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