High Court directs SDM to invoke Section 65 to protect allottee possession and expedite proceedings

A bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Siddharth Nandan heard Writ-C No. 1722 of 2026 concerning a writ petition by Smt. Geeta Devi challenging inaction by district authorities in protecting possession of a residential allotment under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. The petition raised the scope of Section 65 of the Code and whether that power was confined to the immediate post-allotment stage or extended to later dispossessions; the respondents relied on alternate remedies under Section 134 and civil proceedings.

The High Court allowed the writ petition and held that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate possessed power under Section 65 to deliver possession to an allottee beyond the immediate allotment period where a third party occupied state-owned abadi land, and that Section 134 and ordinary civil remedies did not supplant that statutory summary remedy. The Court observed that the beneficial object of the Code required a construction that protected the allottee’s right to shelter. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The very purpose of the allotment as envisaged under the Code, 2006 with respect to residential plot, is to provide shelter to landless agriculturist belonging to a marginalised section of the society and while doing so, unlike agricultural land, the title of an Abadi land is retained with the State and Gaon Sabha being entrusted with the said land; and accordingly it is an onerous duty of the State/Gaon Sabha that, at all time they are required to protect the land, in case of an encroachment over the same, at least till such time, their right to re-vest is surviving. The State cannot take a stand that in spite of the facts that the title belongs to the State, the onus to protect the same is on the allottee; and at the same time for want of such action, a third persons continues to enjoy the property of the State, in contravention of the provisions of the Code, 2006. It is for this purpose that Section 65 and Section 129 of the Code, 2006 has been incorporated, to ensure that the possession of the allottee who is a landless, marginalised person, is protected; any other interpretation will only lead to futility, of the very purpose of the enactment; and the provision for allotment under Section 64 of the Code, 2006.” The Court also noted that the “Right to Shelter” was recognised as a fundamental aspect of Articles 19(1)(e) and 21 of the Constitution.

Background The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the District Magistrate and the SDM, Khaga, Fatehpur, to take action against encroachers on Gata No. 605 in Village Orha, a site allotted to the petitioner under Section 63 read with Section 64 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The allotment stood made in 2012 and related rules (Rules 62–64 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016) prescribed conditions for abadi site allotments, including special concessions for Scheduled Castes. The petitioner’s husband, the original allottee, died before construction completed; the petitioner later attempted to resume construction but alleged that local musclemen prevented completion and encroached the plot. Administrative authorities did not evict the occupiers, and the petitioner invoked Article 21 rights.

The principal legal questions were (i) whether Section 65 empowered the SDM to put an allottee in possession when “any person other than the allottee” occupied the land even after the allottee failed to complete construction, and (ii) whether remedies under Section 134 or civil procedure constituted the exclusive or preferable remedy. The State relied on a Single Judge decision in Murari Singh which confined relief to restoration under Section 134; the petitioner relied on Hawaldar Yadav, which construed Section 65 more broadly. The High Court rejected the restrictive reading in Murari Singh and followed Hawaldar Yadav, holding that Section 65 could be invoked so long as the title vested in the State/Gaon Sabha and the allottee’s right to possession required protection. The Court distinguished allottees from bhumidhars and asamis under Sections 78–79 of the Code and explained that allottees did not become bhumidhars by operation of law. The Court directed respondent no. 3 (SDM, Khaga) to take cognizance of the petitioner’s application under Section 65, provide hearing to the occupying parties, and conclude proceedings expeditiously, preferably within two months from service of certified copy of the order. The Court clarified that it did not express any opinion on the merits and that proceedings were to adhere to principles of natural justice.

Case Details: Case No.: WRIT - C No. - 1722 of 2026 Case Title: Smt. Geeta Devi and another Versus State of U.P. and 5 others Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Sri Dinesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate; Sri Marghoob Hussain, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Azad Rai, C.S.C.