Introduction:

In the case titled Ishan Chaudhary And Another vs. Union Of India And 4 Others [2025 LiveLaw (AB) 136], the Allahabad High Court, comprising Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava and Justice Shekhar B. Saraf, addressed a significant legal question concerning the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, particularly the interpretation of Section 80(1), (2), and (4), and its interplay with Section 116 in the context of jointly held bhumidhari land.

Arguments:

The petitioners, Ishan Chaudhary and another, had approached the High Court challenging the rejection of their petrol pump dealership application by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL). The rejection was premised on the BPCL Dealer Selection Guidelines, 2023, which require that if land offered on lease is jointly owned, all co-owners must execute the lease deed to validate the transaction. In the case at hand, the lease deed had been executed by only one co-owner, Vijay Singh, despite the existence of four other co-bhumidhars in the land as per revenue records. The petitioners contended that the land had been effectively partitioned under an order dated 20 December 2019 under Section 80(1) and argued that once a non-agricultural declaration is made under Section 80, it presupposes the partition of the land by law, thereby making the lease deed valid. They relied on sub-section (4) of Section 80 to support the claim that the declaration itself implied that partition had occurred. On the other hand, the respondents, represented by ASGI Komal Mehrotra, argued that the 2019 order was solely a declaration of non-agricultural use under Section 80(1) and did not constitute or imply any legal partition of the land under Section 116. They emphasised that under the second proviso to Section 80(1), no application for declaration by a co-bhumidhar with undivided interest is maintainable unless either all co-bhumidhars join the application or the land has already been partitioned under law.

Judgement:

The Court, after examining the statutory framework of the 2006 Code and the 2016 Rules, upheld the respondents’ contention. It observed that Rule 88 mandates that when a non-agricultural declaration pertains to part of the holding, demarcation and revenue apportionment must occur, which in turn must follow the procedure outlined under Rule 22 and Section 24, applicable only after partition under Section 116. Importantly, the Court highlighted that the UP Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 2019 had replaced Section 80 in its entirety, and the new sub-section (4) categorically bars a co-bhumidhar with undivided interest from applying under Section 80(1) or (2) unless all co-bhumidhars join or their shares have been lawfully divided under Section 116. The Court concluded that the petitioners failed to present any documentation showing lawful partition of the land as required under Section 116, and hence, the lease executed by only one co-owner was invalid. Consequently, BPCL was justified in rejecting the dealership application as per its guidelines. The petition was therefore dismissed for lack of merit, reaffirming the principle that declarations under Section 80 do not equate to partition and that procedural compliance with Section 116 is mandatory for individual co-bhumidhars seeking to undertake legal acts affecting the entirety or parts of jointly held property.