Exercise Of Discretionary Power Without Taking Into Account "Relevant Considerations" Under Statute Invalid: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that if an authority, conferred with discretionary powers by a statute, ignores or does not take into account considerations that are relevant to the purpose of the statute in question, then its action would be held invalid. Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava observed,"This would be more so where the statute conferring discretion on the authority has...
The Allahabad High Court has held that if an authority, conferred with discretionary powers by a statute, ignores or does not take into account considerations that are relevant to the purpose of the statute in question, then its action would be held invalid.
Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava observed,
"This would be more so where the statute conferring discretion on the authority has structured the discretion by expressly laying down the consideration which should be taken into account by the authority for exercise of the discretion. In such a case, if the exercise of the discretionary power has been influenced by considerations that cannot lawfully be taken into account or by disregard of the relevant considerations required to be taken into account, the decision arrived at by the authority would be invalid."
The Court was dealing with a case under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006.
The Petitioner had made an application under Section 98(1) of the Code, seeking permission to transfer his bhumidaari rights. As per the provision, permission of the Collector is a condition precedent before any bhumidhar of scheduled caste can seek to transfer his land to a person not belonging to a scheduled caste. In the absence of such permission having been obtained, the transfer would be rendered void as per Section 104 and would be subject to the consequences provided under Section 105.
The provision also enumerates the conditions under which permission may be granted by the Collector: (i) in the absence of a surviving heir; (ii) the transferor has settled or is ordinarily residing in a different district or State; (iii) the tenure holder or any member of his family is suffering from any fatal disease; (iv) the applicant is seeking permission for transfer to purchase any other land from the consideration of such proposed transfer; (v) the area of the 10 land held by the applicant on the date of application does not, after such transfer, reduces to less than 1.26 hectares.
The Petitioner herein sought to transfer his land to discharge his responsibilities towards his grandchildren, left behind by his deceased son.
His application was endorsed by a team of revenue officers, indicating that the conditions prescribed for the purpose under the relevant statutory provision stood satisfied. Nevertheless, the application was rejected by the Collector on the ground that the applicant did not state the circumstances under which the land in question was purchased, he had not produced any evidence to support the factum of his illness, etc.
A revision against the Collector's order was also dismissed. Accordingly, the instant proceedings were instituted.
Findings
At the outset, the Court read out the conditions specified under Section 98(1) of the Code, 2006 read with Rule 99 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, under which the Collector may grant permission for transfer by bhumidhars belonging to scheduled caste upon fulfillment of either of the five specified conditions.
It noted that the procedure of obtaining permission for transfer was complied with, upon which the enquiry was duly made as provided under the Rules, 2016 for the purpose of verification of the facts stated in the application and also reporting the circumstances under which permission for transfer was being sought.
"The report submitted by a team of revenue officers made a clear recommendation in favour of the petitioner indicating that the conditions prescribed for the purpose under the relevant statutory provision stood satisfied. In the face of the aforesaid circumstances, the reasons assigned in the order dated 19.07.2021 passed by the Respondent no. 3...are wholly inconsequential for the purpose of grant of permission for transfer," the Court held.
It is then that the Court opined that in exercise of its discretionary power, if the concerned authority ignores or does not take into account considerations which are relevant to the purpose of the statute in question, then its action would be invalid.
Quashing the orders on grounds of their legal unsustainability, the Court held,
"The conditions which are required to be satisfied while considering grant of permission by the Collector to a bhumidhar belonging to a scheduled caste seeking to transfer land belonging to him having been clearly specified under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 98 read with sub-rule (8) of Rule 99, the reference made in the orders impugned to any other circumstance and on the basis thereof to reject the application of the petitioner seeking grant of permission to transfer, would therefore render the exercise of the discretionary power as ultra vires and invalid."
Thereafter, the Court remitted the matter to the Respondent No. 3 for passing fresh orders on the basis of the requisite provisions under Section 98 of the code read with sub-rule (8) of Rule 99 of the Rules subsequently asked the Respondent to pass appropriate order expeditiously and within a period of three months from the date of presentation of the specified copy.
Differentiating the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 and the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 with respect to transfer by a bhumidhar belonging to a Scheduled Caste.
The Court also noted down some points of differences between Section 98 of the Code and corresponding Section 157A and Section 157-AA of the repealed Uttar Pradesh of Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 ("ZA & LR Act"):
"Under the ZA & LR Act, in terms of Section 157-A no bhumidhar or asami belonging to a scheduled caste could transfer the land to a person not belonging to a scheduled caste except with the previous approval of the Collector whereas under Section 157-AA the restriction was to the effect that a person belonging to a scheduled caste having become a bhumidhar with transferable rights under Section 131-B shall have no right to transfer the land by sale or otherwise to any person other than a person belonging to a scheduled caste. The transfer under Section 157-AA was to be permissible only to persons belonging to scheduled castes in the order of preference as prescribed under sub-section (1). The restriction on a scheduled caste with regard to the transfer of land in favour of a person who does not belong to a scheduled caste under Section 157-AA was thus absolute and such transfer was not permissible in any contingency. The language of sub-section (1) of Section 157-AA was such that even in case of a member of a scheduled caste acquiring transferable rights of a bhumidhar under Section 131-B who is desirous to transfer such land to another person belonging to the scheduled caste by way of sale, gift, mortgage or lease the right to transfer was not absolute and the transfer was permissible only in accordance with the preferences specified therein. Sub-section(4) provided that no transfer under Section 157-AA was permissible without the previous approval of the Assistant Collector concerned. These restrictions were made subject to a further condition with the insertion of sub-section (5), in terms of which a transferee of land under sub-section (1) shall have no right to transfer the land by way of sale, gift, mortgage or lease before the expiry of a period of ten years from the date of transfer in his favour."
Case Title: Sitaram v. State of U.P.