The Allahabad High Court recently clarified that under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, a co-bhumidhar (joint landholder) cannot independently apply for converting agricultural land to non-agricultural use unless the land has already been legally divided among all co-owners.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava and Justice Shekhar B. Saraf delivered this ruling while rejecting a writ petition filed by Ishan Chaudhary and another, who challenged Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL)'s decision to deny them a petrol pump dealership.
Read also: Allahabad High Court Summons DCP Over Advocate’s 'House Arrest' During Administrative Judge’s Visit
The applicants had submitted that the land was leased to them by one Vijay Singh, a co-owner of the plot. However, BPCL rejected the lease deed stating that the land had multiple co-owners, and as per the Dealer Selection Guidelines, 2023, a valid lease must be signed by all co-owners.
"Also land conversion under Section 80 of U.P. Revenue Code can't be construed as partition... Hence your lease deed is not valid." – BPCL Order dated 4.3.2025
The petitioners argued that since a declaration under Section 80(1) had been issued in 2019 regarding Vijay Singh’s share, it meant the land was already partitioned.
However, the Court rejected this claim, observing:
"An application for declaration under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) at the behest of any co-bhumidhar, having undivided interest... would be maintainable only upon fulfilment of the necessary pre-condition that the land... had been divided in accordance with the provisions of law." – Allahabad High Court
The Court examined Section 80(4) and noted that for any individual co-bhumidhar to apply for land use change alone, a prior division of land under Section 116 of the Code and related rules is mandatory.
Furthermore, the judges highlighted that the land use declaration under Section 80 does not amount to legal partition, which must be established through formal procedures.
Read also: Runaway Marriages Don't Guarantee Police Protection Without Real Threat: Allahabad High Court
“The reverse implication cannot be inferred... the declaration under Section 80(1) cannot be taken as proof of land division.” – Hon'ble Bench
Since the petitioners failed to produce any document proving a legal division of land among co-owners, the Court found no merit in their plea and dismissed the petition.
Appearances
Counsel for Petitioner: Akhileshwar Pratap Singh, Atul Kumar
Counsel for Respondent: A.S.G.I., Komal Mehrotra
Case title - Ishan Chaudhary And Another vs. Union Of India And 4 Others 2025
