Family Settlement First: Hierarchy within Rule 109(5) for Partition (Kurra) under the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016

Case: Shahadat Ali and Another v. Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow through Member and 8 Others

Court: Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench

Judge: Hon’ble Alok Mathur, J.

Date: Reserved on 12 Aug 2025 | Delivered on 29 Aug 2025

Writ: Writ-B No. 669 of 2025 (Court No. 5)

Disposition: Writ allowed; Board of Revenue’s order dated 17/06/2025 set aside; Trial Court’s final decree dated 31/08/2020 and First Appellate Order dated 21/12/2021 affirmed.

---

Introduction

This writ petition arose from a partition dispute over agricultural land (Gata/Plot No. 572, approx. 0.588 hectares) in Village Tajwapur, Pargana Fakharpur, Tehsil Mahsi, District Bahraich. The property originally belonged to Razaq and devolved upon his three sons—Jumai, Siddiqui, and Birahim—each with a one-third share. Over time, members constructed houses, and several registered sale deeds were executed describing specific portions by metes and bounds. A later development—the construction of the Bahraich–Chahlari District Highway along the northern side—triggered a fresh claim by one co-sharer to proportionate frontage on the commercially valuable road.

The Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) passed a preliminary decree in 2016 and a final decree in 2020, preparing kurras (allotment plans) on the basis of an admitted oral family partition (vahami batwara) and separate possession. The Additional Commissioner dismissed the first appeal. The Board of Revenue, however, allowed the second appeal, invoking Rule 109(5)(c) and (f) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 (“Rules, 2016”), and remanded the matter with directions to proportionately distribute highway-adjacent land.

The High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, was tasked with determining the correct interpretive approach to Rule 109(5)—specifically, whether a long-standing family settlement and continued separate possession must be given primacy over a fresh proportional reallocation based on commercial value or road adjacency.

Summary of the Judgment

• The High Court set aside the Board of Revenue’s order and restored the SDM’s final decree and the Additional Commissioner’s appellate affirmation.
• It held that where there exists a bona fide family settlement (vahami batwara) and co-tenure holders are in separate possession pursuant to that settlement, the preparation of kurras must, as far as possible, follow Rule 109(5)(g) of the Rules, 2016.
• The Court prescribed a clear sequencing/hierarchy for applying Rule 109(5):
  1. First, apply sub-clause (g): honor family settlement or separate possession arising from mutual consent/family arrangement.
  2. If (g) is inapplicable, then apply sub-clause (e): allot to the person in separate possession, provided it is not in excess of their share.
  3. Only if neither (g) nor (e) applies, consider the general factors in sub-clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), and (f), including the equitable distribution of superior/inferior land and road/commercial adjacency.
• Admissions by the plaintiff regarding the pre-existing family settlement, coupled with multiple sale deeds describing precise boundaries, and earlier governmental acquisition of portions from defined holdings, were treated as compelling evidence that the family partition had been effected and acted upon.
• The Court emphasized the well-settled doctrine that family arrangements, even oral, are favored in law, carry a special equity, and should not be disturbed on technicalities.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Kale v. Director of Consolidation, (1976) 3 SCC 119

  The Court reiterated Kale’s seminal principles: family arrangements are specially favored; they can be oral; registration is necessary only if the arrangement itself is reduced to writing; and the doctrine of estoppel may bar a party from unsettling an arrangement under which they have reaped benefits. The judgment’s extensive quotations echo Kale’s rationale—protecting familial unity, avoiding perpetual litigation, and recognizing “special equity” applicable to family settlements.

• Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur, (2020) 9 SCC 706

  The Court quoted Ravinder Kaur Grewal for the proposition that arrangements honestly made to settle familial disputes and conflicting claims are to be enforced. Ravinder Kaur Grewal reaffirmed Kale and underlined the broader social and equitable objectives behind upholding family settlements.

These precedents decisively influenced the High Court’s approach, leading it to privilege the admitted family arrangement and the parties’ long-settled separate possession over a fresh partition designed to distribute highway frontage equally.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeds along three coordinated axes: admissions and conduct of parties; the text and structure of Rule 109(5) of the Rules, 2016; and the equitable policy underpinning family arrangements.

1. Admissions and conduct corroborating a family partition:
   • The plaintiff (Opp. Party No. 2) admitted in the plaint that an oral family partition (vahami batwara) had already taken place; his grievance concerned revenue payment and a demand for legal partition recognizing the existing division.
   • Later commercial interest emerged only after the district highway was constructed on the northern side; this ex post factor could not destabilize an earlier equitable arrangement.
   • Multiple sale deeds (05/03/1997, 19/09/1998, 17/11/2002) recited metes-and-bounds descriptions of specific portions, indicating that the co-sharers and purchasers operated on the premise of distinct, defined holdings pursuant to the family settlement. Similarly, an earlier acquisition for canal construction was executed by specific holders for portions falling in their respective shares—more evidence of settled allocation.
2. Rule 109(5), U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016—Interpretation and Sequencing:

   Rule 109(5) sets out principles for the Lekhpal when preparing the Kurra report. The Court distilled a step-wise hierarchy:

   • First: Sub-clause (g)—If co-tenure holders are in separate possession on the basis of mutual consent or family settlement, the Kurra shall, as far as possible, be fixed accordingly.
   • Second: Sub-clause (e)—If there is separate possession (even without a formal family settlement), allot those plots to such tenure holder so far as they are not in excess of his share.
   • Third: Sub-clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), (f)—Only if (g) and (e) are inapplicable should the Lekhpal balance the remaining general factors, including compactness, avoiding splitting fields, distributing superior/inferior land, and proportionately allotting commercially valuable plots (e.g., road/abadi adjacency).

   This interpretive ordering is the core legal contribution of the judgment—it reconciles potentially competing sub-clauses by granting primacy to settled family arrangements and actual long-standing possession.

3. Special equity of family arrangements:

   Relying on Kale and Ravinder Kaur Grewal, the Court reaffirmed that courts lean in favor of upholding family arrangements, even filling formal lacunae through estoppel, where parties have enjoyed benefits under such arrangements. The aim is to preserve family peace and avoid renewed conflict—particularly salient when a later economic development (like a new highway) tempts re-litigation.

Why the Board of Revenue Erred

• It treated the holding as if it remained practically joint for allocation purposes, despite clear admissions and evidence of a prior settlement and separate possession.
• It prioritized sub-clauses (c) and (f)—especially proportional distribution of road-adjacent commercial land—without first exhausting the inquiry mandated by sub-clauses (g) and (e).
• It disregarded compelling documentary indicators (sale deeds with boundaries; earlier acquisition deeds; conduct of parties) evidencing an existing, well-accepted partition.

Impact and Implications

The judgment has significant operational and doctrinal consequences for partition proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and the Rules, 2016:

• Hierarchy clarified: Revenue authorities now have a definitive, court-endorsed sequence to apply Rule 109(5). This curtails ad hoc reliance on the “commercial value/road adjacency” factor where a family settlement exists.
• Stability of long-standing settlements: Co-sharers cannot leverage later infrastructural developments (e.g., highways) to re-open settled partitions and demand fresh frontage allocation, absent vitiating factors.
• Evidence standards reinforced: Admissions in pleadings, sale deeds demarcating precise parcels, prior governmental acquisitions from identified holders, and possession-based conduct are potent evidence of pre-existing family arrangements.
• Administrative guidance: The judgment doubles as a practical manual for Lekhpals and SDMs, offering a clear triage:
  1. Is there a family settlement/separate possession by mutual consent? If yes, follow it (Rule 109(5)(g)).
  2. If not, is there separate possession consistent with shares? If yes, respect it (Rule 109(5)(e)).
  3. Failing both, balance the general principles (Rule 109(5)(a)-(d), (f)).
• Reduced litigation and forum shopping: The decision discourages second appeals predicated solely on later-arising commercial motivations.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Kurra: The allotment plan prepared during partition proceedings showing how specific parcels are assigned to each co-sharer according to their shares and applicable principles.
• Vahami Batwara (Oral Partition): An informal, often unwritten family division of property mutually accepted and acted upon by co-sharers; recognized in law and in Rule 109(5)(g).
• Co-tenure holder: A person who holds an undivided share in a joint holding with others.
• Metes and bounds: A method of describing land by precise boundaries and measurements—often strong evidence of how parties understood and possessed specific parcels.
• Chak marg: An agricultural pathway or access road often mentioned in rural land records and sale deeds.
• Rule 109(5), Rules, 2016: Sets principles for Kurra preparation. The judgment establishes that sub-clause (g) (family settlement/separate possession by consent) comes first, then (e) (separate possession to be honored if not exceeding share), then the general considerations (compactness, no splitting, fair distribution of superior/inferior land, road/commercial adjacency).
• Commercial value/road adjacency (Rule 109(5)(f)): A factor for proportionate allotment of valuable land—applicable if no family settlement or recognized separate possession exists.
• Estoppel in family settlements: A party who has accepted and benefited from a family arrangement may be barred from later challenging it merely to seek a better bargain.

Practical Notes for Practitioners and Revenue Officials

• Checklist to establish a family settlement/separate possession:
  • Admissions in pleadings (plaint/written statement) acknowledging earlier division.
  • Sale deeds post-dating the alleged partition that describe specific parcels by boundaries.
  • Governmental acquisitions/compensation records indicating portions taken from identified holders.
  • Long-standing possession, constructions (houses), and cultivation patterns consistent with the partition.
• When to consider road/commercial adjacency under Rule 109(5)(f): Only if no family settlement exists and separate possession cannot be honored under (e). It is not a basis to undo an old, accepted partition.
• Sale deeds in joint holdings: While a co-sharer typically conveys only his share, the recitals of metes and bounds can serve as cogent evidence of how the family had actually divided and possessed the land.
• “As far as possible” caveat: Even when honoring family settlement or separate possession, ensure the allotted portion does not exceed the co-sharer’s lawful share; minor adjustments may be needed to reconcile share calculations with ground realities.

Key Passages/Principles Affirmed

• Family arrangements are specially favored and may be oral; registration is required only if the arrangement itself is reduced to writing.
• Courts may use estoppel to prevent parties from unsettling an arrangement they have accepted and benefited from.
• Rule 109(5) must be applied in a structured sequence: (g) → (e) → (a), (b), (c), (d), (f).

Conclusion

The Allahabad High Court’s decision in Shahadat Ali v. Board of Revenue crystallizes a vital interpretive rule for partition proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016. It establishes that a bona fide family settlement (even oral) and the resultant separate possession deserve primacy when preparing kurras. Only if such settlement or separate possession cannot be honored should revenue authorities resort to the general balancing factors, including proportionate allotment of commercially valuable or road-adjacent land.

By restoring the SDM’s decree and the Additional Commissioner’s affirmance, and by setting aside the Board of Revenue’s direction to reallocate highway frontage, the Court reinforces legal certainty for families that have long settled their affairs and discourages opportunistic attempts to reopen partitions due to subsequent changes in land value. The step-wise hierarchy articulated for Rule 109(5) is the judgment’s enduring contribution: it provides clear operational guidance to Lekhpals, SDMs, and appellate authorities, thereby promoting fairness, finality, and the social peace that family arrangements are designed to achieve.