Ramautar @ Ramavtar … v. State of Uttar Pradesh & 4 Others

Judgment

1. Heard Sri Karan Prakash Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.

2. The present petition has been filed seeking to assail the order dated 23.11.2024 passed by respondent no. 3, the Collector/District Magistrate, Bulandshahr, in Case No. 4481 of 2024 (Ramautar @ Ramavtar vs. State of U.P.), whereby the petitioner’s application seeking permission under Section 98(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 20061 was rejected. The subsequent order dated 03.07.2025 passed by respondent no. 2, the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, in Revision No. 891 of 2025 (Ramautar @ Ramavtar vs. State of U.P.), 1 Code,2006 2 Writ-C No.35385 of 2025 whereby the revision preferred against the aforesaid order came to be dismissed is also challenged.

3. As per the facts set out in the writ petition, the petitioner claims to be a tenure holder (bhumidhar with transferable rights) of an agricultural land bearing Khata No. 106, Khasra No. 2/2/4 area 0.482 hectare; Khata No. 101, Khasra No. 95/1 area 0.076 hectare; and Khata No. 101, Khasra No. 85/1 area 0.0210 hectare. Out of the aforesaid parcels of land, land bearing Khata No. 106, Khasra No. 2/2/4 area 0.4820 hectare was acquired by the petitioner through a registered sale deed executed on

09.03.2011. The erstwhile owners of the land also belonged to the Scheduled Caste category.

4. The petitioner asserts that he is suffering from chronic viral Hepatitis B disease. The cost of treatment being substantial and recurring, the petitioner was constrained to seek financial means to continue his medical care. In view of the financial exigencies arising from the aforesaid medical condition, the petitioner submitted an online application under Section 98 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, seeking permission to sell his agricultural land bearing Khata No. 106, Khasra No. 2/2/4 area 0.4820 hectare to a person who does not belong to the Scheduled Caste Category.

5. Pursuant to the said application, a detailed enquiry report dated

05.11.2024 was prepared by the Tehsildar, Khurja, who, upon due verification, recorded that the petitioner was indeed suffering from serious illness and recommended grant of permission under Section 98 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Khurja, thereafter forwarded the Tehsildar’s report along with his own covering report dated 14.11.2024 to the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr. However, in his report, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate took a contrary view, and recommended refusal of permission on the ground that the land proposed to be sold had earlier been a leased holding.

6. The matter was placed before the Collector/District Magistrate, Bulandshahr, where it was registered as Case No. 4481 of 2024 3 Writ-C No.35385 of 2025 (Ramautar @ Ramavtar vs. State of U.P.). The Collector, by order dated

23.11.2024, rejected the petitioner’s application primarily on the ground that the land proposed to be sold had earlier been a leased holding and that the petitioner would become landless upon completion of the sale.

7. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, which was registered as Case No. 891 of 2025. The revisional authority by order dated 03.07.2025 dismissed the revision, essentially reiterating the reasons as recorded by the Collector.

Contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the impugned orders suffer from manifest error apparent on the face of record and are wholly mechanical and arbitrary in nature. It is submitted that the finding recorded by the Collector regarding the petitioner becoming landless is contrary to the material available on record, inasmuch as the report dated 14.11.2024 does not state any such fact. It is further urged that even assuming the land to have been a leased holding at some point of time, the same could not, by itself, constitute a ground to prohibit the petitioner from transferring his self-acquired land purchased through a registered sale deed from a bhumidhar with transferable rights, provided that the conditions stipulated under Rule 99(8) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 20162 are fulfilled.

9. It is submitted that despite the report dated 14.11.2024 submitted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Khurja, wherein a clear recommendation was made in favour of the petitioner, the application seeking permission for transfer of land under Section 98 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was rejected by the Collector by order dated

23.11.2024. The said order proceeds on the reasoning that the petitioner, upon completion of the proposed sale, would become a landless person, and that the land in question being a leased holding could not be transferred. The revision filed by the petitioner against the said order was 2 Rules, 2016 4 Writ-C No.35385 of 2025 dismissed by the learned Commissioner vide order dated 03.07.2025, merely reiterating the findings of the Collector without independent consideration of the material on record.

10. It is argued that both the impugned orders dated 23.11.2024 and

03.07.2025 are cursory, mechanical, arbitrary, and devoid of any application of judicial mind, inasmuch as both the authorities have failed to consider the recommendation of the Tehsildar and the medical exigencies of the petitioner. The orders suffer from manifest error apparent on the face of the record, as the authorities below have faltered both on questions of fact and law.

11. Counsel for the petitioner has urged that in terms of the Explanation appended to sub-rule (8) of Rule 99 of Rules, 20163, if the condition enumerated in Clause (d) is not fulfilled but any of other conditions enumerated in Clauses (a) to (c) are fulfilled, permission can be granted.

12. Learned counsel asserts that the application had been made by stating that the petitioner was suffering from a serious disease and, therefore, irrespective of non-fulfillment of the condition in Clause (d), the permission ought to have been granted. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the decisions of this Court in Sitaram vs. State of U.P. and Others4, Smt. Omwati Vs. Collector District Pilibhit And 2 Others5and Bajrangi vs. State of U.P. and Others6.

13. In particular, attention of this Court is invited to the decision in the case of Bajrangi (supra), wherein the scope and intent of Section 98 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and Rule 99(8) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 were elaborately considered. Referring to Maxwell on The Interpretation of Statutes7 and the decisions in, Smt. Krishna Shri Gupta v. State of U.P. and Others8, Fakir Mohd. v. Sita Ram9, Guru 2022 (5) ADJ 90 2023 (1) ADJ 280 2023 (7) ADJ 598 3 Rules, 2016 4 5 6 7 Maxwell on The Interpretation of Statutes, Twelfth Edition 8 9 2020 (3) ADJ 358 (2002) 1 SCC 741 5 Writ-C No.35385 of 2025 Nanak Dev University vs. Sanjay Kumar Katwal and another10 G.P. Ceramics (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner11, Trade Tax, Uttar Pradesh Lord Halsbury in Mersey Docks and Harbour Board vs. Henderson12, it was observed as follows: “23. ...it may be noticed that in terms of sub rule (8) of Rule 99, the Collector is required to record his satisfaction with regard to the fulfillment of conditions contained under Clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e). It may further be noticed that Clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d), are connected, by the word ‘or’, and Clause (e) is connected by using the word ‘and’.

24. The conjunctions ‘and’ and ‘or’ are two of the elemental words in the English Language— ‘and’ combines items while ‘or’ creates alternatives.

25. In Maxwell on The Interpretation of Statutes, it has been observed as follows: “ in ordinary usage, ‘and’ is conjunctive and ‘or’ disjunctive”.

26. It was held by this Court in Smt. Krishna Shri Gupta v. State of U.P. and Others that in the context of statutory interpretation, the word ‘or’ has generally been construed as being disjunctive. The relevant observations made in the judgment are as follows: “25. In logic, mathematics and in the context of statutory interpretation, the word “or” has generally been construed as being disjunctive i.e. connective that marks alternatives. It has been used to connect words, phrases or classes representing alternatives.”

27. In Fakir Mohd. v. Sita Ram, it was held that the word ‘or’ is normally disjunctive. The use of the word ‘or’ in a statute manifests the legislative intent of the alternatives prescribed under law.

28. In the case of Guru Nanak Dev University vs. Sanjay Kumar Katwal and Another, it was held that the use of ‘or’ between two qualifications conveyed a disjunctive sense indicating alternatives and possession of either of the qualifications would be held to be sufficient. It was reiterated that the word ‘or’ is normally used in the disjunctive sense unless the context warrants otherwise.

29. The interpretation of the word ‘or’ in the context of an exemption notification issued under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 came up for consideration in the case of G.P. Ceramics (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Trade Tax, Uttar Pradesh, and it was held that the three contingencies

Contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the impugned orders suffer from manifest error apparent on the face of record and are wholly mechanical and arbitrary in nature. It is submitted that the finding recorded by the Collector regarding the petitioner becoming landless is contrary to the material available on record, inasmuch as the report dated 14.11.2024 does not state any such fact. It is further urged that even assuming the land to have been a leased holding at some point of time, the same could not, by itself, constitute a ground to prohibit the petitioner from transferring his self-acquired land purchased through a registered sale deed from a bhumidhar with transferable rights, provided that the conditions stipulated under Rule 99(8) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 20162 are fulfilled.

9. It is submitted that despite the report dated 14.11.2024 submitted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Khurja, wherein a clear recommendation was made in favour of the petitioner, the application seeking permission for transfer of land under Section 98 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was rejected by the Collector by order dated

23.11.2024. The said order proceeds on the reasoning that the petitioner, upon completion of the proposed sale, would become a landless person, and that the land in question being a leased holding could not be transferred. The revision filed by the petitioner against the said order was 2 Rules, 2016 4 Writ-C No.35385 of 2025 dismissed by the learned Commissioner vide order dated 03.07.2025, merely reiterating the findings of the Collector without independent consideration of the material on record.

10. It is argued that both the impugned orders dated 23.11.2024 and

03.07.2025 are cursory, mechanical, arbitrary, and devoid of any application of judicial mind, inasmuch as both the authorities have failed to consider the recommendation of the Tehsildar and the medical exigencies of the petitioner. The orders suffer from manifest error apparent on the face of the record, as the authorities below have faltered both on questions of fact and law.

11. Counsel for the petitioner has urged that in terms of the Explanation appended to sub-rule (8) of Rule 99 of Rules, 20163, if the condition enumerated in Clause (d) is not fulfilled but any of other conditions enumerated in Clauses (a) to (c) are fulfilled, permission can be granted.

12. Learned counsel asserts that the application had been made by stating that the petitioner was suffering from a serious disease and, therefore, irrespective of non-fulfillment of the condition in Clause (d), the permission ought to have been granted. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the decisions of this Court in Sitaram vs. State of U.P. and Others4, Smt. Omwati Vs. Collector District Pilibhit And 2 Others5and Bajrangi vs. State of U.P. and Others6.

13. In particular, attention of this Court is invited to the decision in the case of Bajrangi (supra), wherein the scope and intent of Section 98 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and Rule 99(8) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 were elaborately considered. Referring to Maxwell on The Interpretation of Statutes7 and the decisions in, Smt. Krishna Shri Gupta v. State of U.P. and Others8, Fakir Mohd. v. Sita Ram9, Guru 2022 (5) ADJ 90 2023 (1) ADJ 280 2023 (7) ADJ 598 3 Rules, 2016 4 5 6 7 Maxwell on The Interpretation of Statutes, Twelfth Edition 8 9 2020 (3) ADJ 358 (2002) 1 SCC 741 5 Writ-C No.35385 of 2025 Nanak Dev University vs. Sanjay Kumar Katwal and another10 G.P. Ceramics (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner11, Trade Tax, Uttar Pradesh Lord Halsbury in Mersey Docks and Harbour Board vs. Henderson12, it was observed as follows: “23. ...it may be noticed that in terms of sub rule (8) of Rule 99, the Collector is required to record his satisfaction with regard to the fulfillment of conditions contained under Clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e). It may further be noticed that Clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d), are connected, by the word ‘or’, and Clause (e) is connected by using the word ‘and’.

24. The conjunctions ‘and’ and ‘or’ are two of the elemental words in the English Language— ‘and’ combines items while ‘or’ creates alternatives.

25. In Maxwell on The Interpretation of Statutes, it has been observed as follows: “ in ordinary usage, ‘and’ is conjunctive and ‘or’ disjunctive”.

26. It was held by this Court in Smt. Krishna Shri Gupta v. State of U.P. and Others that in the context of statutory interpretation, the word ‘or’ has generally been construed as being disjunctive. The relevant observations made in the judgment are as follows: “25. In logic, mathematics and in the context of statutory interpretation, the word “or” has generally been construed as being disjunctive i.e. connective that marks alternatives. It has been used to connect words, phrases or classes representing alternatives.”

27. In Fakir Mohd. v. Sita Ram, it was held that the word ‘or’ is normally disjunctive. The use of the word ‘or’ in a statute manifests the legislative intent of the alternatives prescribed under law.

28. In the case of Guru Nanak Dev University vs. Sanjay Kumar Katwal and Another, it was held that the use of ‘or’ between two qualifications conveyed a disjunctive sense indicating alternatives and possession of either of the qualifications would be held to be sufficient. It was reiterated that the word ‘or’ is normally used in the disjunctive sense unless the context warrants otherwise.

29. The interpretation of the word ‘or’ in the context of an exemption notification issued under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 came up for consideration in the case of G.P. Ceramics (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Trade Tax, Uttar Pradesh, and it was held that the three contingencies