Agricultural Land Partition (Batwara) under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006

A Guide to Co-Tenure Division, Preliminary and Final Decrees, Revenue Survey Mechanics, Preparation of Kurras (Lots), and Injunctive Protection against Dispossession

1. Executive Summary & Client Problem Statement

Joint agricultural ownership in Uttar Pradesh is one of the most volatile arenas of rural and semi-urban litigation. Under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, when agricultural land is held jointly by co-bhumidhars, every co-sharer possesses an undivided proprietary interest in every square inch of the agricultural parcel. While peaceful co-cultivation may endure across one generation, the expansion of families, unequal investments in tubewell irrigation, high-value highway frontages, and opportunistic sales to aggressive third-party developers inevitably trigger acute civil friction.

The core crisis for an aggrieved co-sharer arises when dominant co-tenants exploit undivided status to inflict systemic prejudice:

• Monopolization of Prime Commercial Frontage: Dominant co-sharers or powerful local syndicates forcibly occupy the lucrative frontage along national highways, state highways, or paved village link roads, relegating weaker co-sharers, widows, or non-resident owners to waterlogged, inaccessible rear tracts (*Pichhari*).
• Unilateral Distress Sales and Third-Party Encroachment: An unscrupulous co-sharer executes a registered sale deed specifying specific physical boundaries (*Chauhaddi*) to an outsider developer or land aggregator, despite having only an undivided fractional share. The aggressive commercial purchaser then attempts to erect boundary walls or dig foundations over the best portion of the joint field before formal division.
• Destruction of Standing Crops and Physical Dispossession: While partition litigation is pending, dominant co-tenants frequently use tractor tilling to obliterate traditional field ridges (*Menda*), destroy standing sugarcane or wheat crops, disconnect irrigation channels, and physically dispossess vulnerable co-owners under the guise of joint possession.

The Client's Strategic Objective: A co-sharer cannot achieve true economic sovereignty or obtain independent title without instituting a statutory Suit for Division of Holding under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO). Crucially, the litigation must be navigated through two distinct judicial milestones: securing a Preliminary Decree defining fractional shares, and enforcing a Final Decree with equitable Kurras (physical lots) prepared by the Lekhpal/Revenue Inspector under Rule 109, while maintaining ironclad interim injunctions under Section 146 against third-party alienation.

2. Immediate "What to Do First": Emergency Client Action Protocol

When co-sharer friction intensifies or an adversary attempts to construct or alienate specific portions of joint agricultural land, a client must execute the following emergency measures:

A. Critical Documents to Gather Immediately

• Certified Khatauni of the Joint Holding: Obtain the current certified Khatauni reflecting all recorded co-bhumidhars, their parentage, and the exact Gata numbers and areas. Verify whether any co-sharer’s share has been mortgaged to a cooperative bank or attached under tehsil citations.
• Village Revenue Map (*Shajra*): Obtain a certified copy of the official revenue map (*Chak Shajra*) from the Tehsil Land Records Office (*Abhilekhagar*) showing the physical contours, boundaries, access paths (*Chak Marg*), and irrigation drains (*Nali*) adjoining the subject plots.
• Khasra (Field Book Extract): Certified extract of the contemporary Khasra proving who is recorded as actual cultivator of specific Gatas, soil classifications (*Dosh Vand*), and existence of trees, tubewells, or farm structures.
• Chain of Title Muniments: Certified copies of parent sale deeds, consolidation allotment orders (CH Form 23 and CH Form 45), or succession pedigrees (*Shajra Nasab*) proving the genealogical origin of undivided shares.
• Photographic and Video Evidence of Possession: Geo-tagged photographs and video footage of standing crops, tubewell borewells, farm houses, or boundary fences to rebut false claims of exclusive adversary possession.

B. Fatal Tactical Mistakes to Avoid

• Relying on Oral or Private Family Settlements (*Khangi Batwara*): An oral partition or notarized family agreement may have social standing, but under Section 116, it has zero legal validity to bind revenue authorities or third-party purchasers. Revenue courts and sub-registrars recognize only judicial decrees. Until a final decree under Section 116 is executed and Khatauni is mutated into separate Khatas, you remain vulnerable to joint attachment and partition disputes.
• Failing to Seek an Interim Injunction under Section 146: Merely filing a partition plaint under Section 116 does not automatically freeze the physical status of the land. Litigants who omit an urgent application under Section 146 for temporary injunction frequently find that the opposing party constructs commercial sheds or sells plots during the 2 to 4 years of litigation, complicating final partition irreversibly.
• Neglecting to Implead All Necessary Parties: Under Section 116(2) and the Code of Civil Procedure, every single recorded co-sharer, as well as the Gram Sabha (represented by the Land Management Committee), is an indispensable party. Omission of even a single distant co-heir renders the preliminary decree defective and subject to recall applications years later.
• Passive Acceptance of Biased Lekhpal Kurra Reports: When the Revenue Inspector prepares physical lots (*Kurras*), litigants frequently fail to inspect the map or file detailed expert objections within the 15-day objection period under Rule 109. If a defective Kurra is confirmed into a Final Decree, challenging it on revision or writ becomes extraordinarily difficult.

3. Statutory Architecture & Legal Provisions

The division of agricultural holdings in Uttar Pradesh is codified under Chapter IX of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and Chapter IX of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016.

Section 116: Suit for Division of Holding by Bhumidhar

"(1) A bhumidhar may sue for the division of his holding and his share therein may be separated by metes and bounds.

(2) To every such suit, the Gram Sabha concerned shall be made a party.

(3) In a suit under sub-section (1), the court may, if it thinks fit, instead of dividing the holding, direct the sale of the holding or any part thereof and the distribution of the proceeds among the co-bhumidhars, if it appears that the division cannot reasonably or conveniently be made."

Section 117: Duty of Court to Preserve Public Utilities & Access

In every suit for partition under Section 116, the court shall ensure that existing pathways (Chak Marg), irrigation channels (Nali), watercourses, and public facilities are preserved and that no co-sharer is deprived of necessary access to roads and water sources.

Rule 109, U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016: Rules for Preparation of Kurras (Lots)

Rule 109 establishes strict, binding mandates for the revenue survey officer / Lekhpal when dividing land on the ground:

• Compactness: Each co-sharer’s lot (*Kurra*) must be formed in a compact rectangular or square shape, minimizing fragmentation.
• Road & Irrigation Frontage: Road frontage along highways or Chak Margs, as well as access to irrigation facilities, must be apportioned pro-rata according to each co-sharer's fractional entitlement. No single co-sharer may be allocated the entire frontage while others are pushed into landlocked rear sectors.
• Preservation of Improvements: Where a co-sharer has constructed a lawful private tubewell, farmhouse, or orchard at their own expense without objection from co-tenants, that specific portion must, so far as practicable, be allotted within that co-sharer's Kurra, with financial adjustment or land compensation (*Owelty*) provided to equalise shares if value disparity occurs.

Comprehensive Analysis of Rule 107 & Rule 108: Preliminary Inquiry & Share Determination

Under Rule 107 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, upon filing of the plaint, the Sub-Divisional Officer must immediately scrutinize whether the suit involves any land covered under consolidation operations under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. If a village is under active consolidation notifications under Section 4 or Section 52 has not been issued, the revenue court’s jurisdiction under Section 116 remains statutorily barred, and partition must be claimed exclusively before the Consolidation Officer (CO) under Section 9-A(2) of the 1953 Act. Furthermore, under Rule 108, before framing the preliminary decree, the SDO is mandated to summon the consolidation records (CH Form 41 and 45) to ensure that fragmentation below the minimum agricultural holding threshold (defined under Section 116(3)) is not being created artificially to evade land ceiling provisions.

Interplay with Hindu Succession Act, 1956 & Section 108 of the Code:

A recurring point of conflict before the Allahabad High Court is whether daughters and married sisters have an equal share in agricultural partition suits. Following the landmark ruling in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma ((2020) 9 SCC 1) and the statutory harmonization of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, male and female lineal descendants inherit agricultural bhumidhari rights equally in accordance with the revised table of succession in Section 108. Litigants who set up old customs under the erstwhile UPZA&LR Act to disinherit female co-sharers in partition suits are routinely rebuffed by the courts.

4. Supreme Court & Allahabad High Court Jurisprudence

5. Step-by-Step Procedural Roadmap

Litigating an agricultural partition suit from plaint presentation to final demarcation involves six formal procedural phases:

• Stage 1: Plaint Institution & Service of Summons
• Plaint presented under Section 116 before the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) of the sub-division where the land is located.
• Mandatory impleadment of all recorded co-bhumidhars, Gaon Sabha (Land Management Committee), and State of U.P.
• Simultaneous filing of an interim injunction application under Section 146 seeking status quo on spot possession, nature of land, and alienation.
• Issuance of formal court summons and publication under the Code of Civil Procedure.
• Stage 2: Written Statement & Framing of Issues
• Defendants file Written Statements admitting, denying, or claiming specific shares based on inheritance, sale deeds, or prior family gifts.
• SDO frames formal issues concerning: (i) correctness of shares claimed; (ii) validity of any disputed transfer; (iii) whether the land is impartible or restricted under consolidation laws.
• Stage 3: Adjudication & Preliminary Decree
• Parties lead documentary and oral evidence regarding genealogy, sale deeds, and title.
• SDO delivers judgment declaring the exact mathematical shares (e.g., 1/2, 1/3, 1/4) of each co-bhumidhar. This constitutes the Preliminary Decree.
• An appeal against the Preliminary Decree lies within 30 days before the Divisional Commissioner under Section 207 of the Code.
• Stage 4: Commission for Preparation of Kurras (Lots)
• Upon finality of the Preliminary Decree, the SDO issues a precept/commission to the Revenue Inspector (Kanungo) or Lekhpal to visit the land, survey boundaries, and prepare physical lots (*Kurras*) under Rule 109.
• The Revenue Inspector prepares a detailed field map (*Naksha Kurra*) showing color-coded proposed allotments, road frontages, watercourse access, and valuation parity.
• The Kurra report is submitted to the SDO court, and a 15-day statutory window is opened for filing written objections (*Apatti*).
• Stage 5: Final Decree & Stamp Duty Assessment
• SDO hears objections on the Kurras. If biased or violative of Rule 109, the SDO remits the report for re-survey or modifies the lots.
• Once confirmed, non-judicial stamp papers of requisite value (as per the Indian Stamp Act, 1899) are called from the parties, and the Final Decree is engrossed.
• Stage 6: Dakhal Dehani (Execution & Physical Delivery of Possession)
• Execution application filed under Section 214 of the Code. The Tehsildar, Revenue Inspector, and police force visit the site.
• Boundary pillars (*Sehadda / Menda*) are erected separating each lot.
• Delivery of possession receipt (*Dakhalnama*) is executed on the spot and submitted to court.
• Revenue record keeper separates the Khatauni into independent *Khatas* with new sub-divided Gata numbers (e.g., Gata 452/1, 452/2).

6. Extensive Client FAQ Section

Q1. Can one co-sharer sell their specific portion of the agricultural field to a third party before partition?

Answer: Under the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ramdas v. Sitabai (2009), an undivided co-sharer owns an undivided fractional interest in every part of the joint land, but does NOT own any specific demarcated corner, highway frontage, or square yard to the exclusion of other co-sharers. A co-sharer can sell only their undivided fractional share (e.g., 1/4th share). If the sale deed recites specific physical boundaries (*Chauhaddi*), that recital is legally ineffective against the other co-sharers. The third-party purchaser cannot take forceful physical possession of that specific corner. The purchaser's only remedy is to join or institute a partition suit under Section 116 to have their purchased share separated by metes and bounds.

Q2. How does the revenue court ensure fair distribution of highway or road frontage during partition?

Answer: Rule 109 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 explicitly commands that road frontage must be divided proportionately according to each co-sharer’s share. For example, if a joint plot has 100 meters of national highway frontage and there are two equal co-sharers (1/2 each), the Revenue Inspector must prepare Kurras giving 50 meters of road frontage to each co-sharer, running back in rectangular strips. If the Revenue Inspector allots the entire road frontage to one co-sharer and dumps the other in the landlocked rear, the aggrieved party must file objections before the SDO. The Allahabad High Court routinely quashes such unfair Kurras as violative of statutory equity.

Q3. What can I do if a co-sharer starts constructing a house or boundary wall while the partition suit is pending?

Answer: You must immediately file an urgent application for Temporary Injunction under Section 146 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 read with Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the SDO court. Plead that the defendant is altering the nature of the agricultural land and attempting to capture prime road frontage to present a fait accompli. Pray for an ad-interim ex-parte injunction restraining the defendant from raising construction, changing the nature of the holding, or creating third-party rights. If the SDO delays or fails to pass an order, you can approach the Allahabad High Court via a petition under Article 227 for immediate protective directions.

Q4. What is the difference between a Preliminary Decree and a Final Decree in a Section 116 Partition Suit?

Answer: A Preliminary Decree declares the legal rights and fractional shares of each party (e.g., Plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share, Defendant No. 1 to 1/3rd, Defendant No. 2 to 1/3rd) based on title and succession documents. It does not demarcate physical land. A Final Decree takes the declared shares and translates them into physical reality on the ground through the preparation of *Kurras* (separate lots), field surveys, boundary pillar installations, and the engrossment of the decree on non-judicial stamp papers. A partition suit is legally complete only upon the passing and execution of the Final Decree.

Q5. How long does a Section 116 Partition Suit take in Uttar Pradesh, and can it be expedited?

Answer: Under the statutory guidelines of the U.P. Revenue Code, a partition suit should ideally conclude within six months. However, due to summons service delays, expert Kurra objections, and adjournments in Tehsil courts, contested partition suits frequently take 2 to 4 years. Litigants can expedite proceedings by ensuring prompt Dasti service of summons, avoiding unnecessary adjournments, and, if the matter remains stalled without cause, filing an expediting petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench or Allahabad) seeking a mandamus directing the SDO to decide the suit within a fixed timeframe (typically 6 months).

Q6. What happens if a joint agricultural plot is too small to be conveniently divided among multiple co-sharers?

Answer: Under Section 116(3) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, if the court finds that the holding cannot reasonably or conveniently be divided by metes and bounds (for instance, a tiny plot of 200 square meters claimed by ten heirs where division would create unviable slivers of land), the SDO is empowered to order the public auction or private sale of the holding and distribute the net sale proceeds among the co-bhumidhars strictly in proportion to their declared shares.

Q7. Who bears the cost of non-judicial stamp duty for preparing the Final Decree in a partition suit?

Answer: Under Article 45 of Schedule I-B of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (as applicable in Uttar Pradesh), stamp duty is payable on the Final Decree of partition based on the value of the separated shares (excluding the largest share). The statutory stamp duty must be deposited by the co-sharers whose shares are separated. In practice, each co-sharer deposits stamp papers corresponding to the valuation of their allocated Kurra to enable the court to engross the final decree and transmit it to the Sub-Registrar and revenue record keeper for independent Khata generation.

Q8. Can a co-sharer challenge a confirmed Final Decree if the Lekhpal colluded with the adversary during Kurra preparation?

Answer: Yes. If a Final Decree was obtained through collusion, suppression of objections, or gross violation of Rule 109 guidelines, the aggrieved party has a statutory remedy to file an Appeal under Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the Divisional Commissioner within 30 days. If the appellate authority fails to remedy the jurisdictional defect or perversity, a Revision lies under Section 210 before the Board of Revenue U.P., and ultimately a Writ Petition under Article 226/227 before the Allahabad High Court.

Q9. Can co-sharers partition an agricultural holding if consolidation operations (Chakbandi) are ongoing in the village?

Answer: No. Under Section 5(c) and Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, the moment a notification under Section 4(2) of the Act is published in the official gazette bringing a village under consolidation, all pending partition suits under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code stand abated, and no new regular revenue suit can be instituted before the SDO. The division of holdings and allocation of independent chaks must be agitated exclusively before the Consolidation Officer (CO), Settlement Officer of Consolidation (SOC), and Deputy Director of Consolidation (DDC). The regular jurisdiction of the SDO revives only after the village is denotified upon completion of consolidation under Section 52 of the 1953 Act.

Q10. How is owelty or monetary compensation calculated if one co-sharer receives an inherently more valuable plot?

Answer: Where the physical characteristics of an agricultural parcel make an absolutely equal physical division impossible—such as when one parcel possesses prime road frontage, high fertility, or an existing commercial tubewell while another portion is low-lying or rocky—the court applies the equitable doctrine of Owelty. Under Rule 109(3), the SDO directs the Revenue Inspector to assess the market valuation of each lot based on prevailing circle rates and productivity. The co-sharer receiving the superior lot is ordered to pay a specified monetary sum to the co-sharer receiving the inferior lot. The Final Decree will not be engrossed or executed until the requisite owelty deposit is made into the court treasury.

SUMANJARI & CO. ADVOCATES

Chambers for Revenue Law, Land Title Defense, GST, Direct Tax & High Court Writ Litigation

Chamber D-311, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Uttar Pradesh – 226010

Direct Consultation: +91 82990 86204  |  Web: sumanjariadvocates.com

Disclaimer: This publication is intended solely for client awareness and academic reference under the Advocates Act, 1961, and does not constitute formal legal solicitation.