Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:61926 Court No. - 85 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40118 of 2024 Petitioner :- Smt. Anju Rani Respondent :- State of UP and 3 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anuradha Kesharwani,Saurabh Kesarwani,Smriti Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. Heard Ms. Smriti Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4. 2. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste Category and while intending to sell his land, an application under Section 98(1) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short 'the Code, 2006') was filed by him before the Sub Divisional Officer (Administration), Gautam Budh Nagar. The same has been rejected by the order impugned dated 19.09.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that rejection is based upon an online report obtained from Tehsildar, Dadri and noticing the defects that encumbrance certificate and khatauni etc. have not been produced by the petitioner. Another ground for rejection is that no agreement for sale as regards valuation of the property sought to be sold, was brought on record. Certain other observations pointing out deficiencies have also been made. It is urged that while granting or refusing permission under the said provision, the officer has to follow the mandate of law as elaborately explained by this Court in its judgement in Omwati and others vs. Collector, District Pilibhit and others, 2023 (1) ADJ 280. It is urged that statutory requirements have not been followed in the present case. 4. Learned Standing Counsel submits that officer had called for a report and then having noticed the deficiencies, the application has been rejected which order does not call for any interference. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal. submits that even if certain report was received by the officer, it was incumbent for him to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to file objections against the same and, in any case, the deficiencies noticed could have been removed, had the petitioner been provided proper opportunity to produce documents, but no such exercise was undertaken and, cryptically, the application has been rejected. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the judgement in Omwati (supra), this Court finds that the order impugned is in teeth of statutory provisions, as elaborated by this Court in the said judgement. In 'paragraphs 26 and 27' of the said judgment, it has been held as under:- "26. 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. The orders impugned having been passed in the absence of consideration of the relevant provisions and being based on wholly irrelevant consideration, are accordingly held to be legally unsustainable and are set aside. 27. In both the writ petitions, the matter is remitted to the Collector for passing of fresh order on the basis of the provisions contained under Section 98 of the Code, 2006 read with sub-rule (8) of Rule 99 of the Rules, 2016 in the light of the discussion made hereinabove. The respondent authority would be expected to pass appropriate orders on the applications of the petitioners under Section 98 seeking grant of permission for transfer, expeditiously, and preferably within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. " 7. The judgement in Omwati (supra) squarely applies in the facts of the present case. 8. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. 9. The order impugned dated 19.09.2024 is hereby quashed. 10. The matter is remitted to the Collector, Gautam Budh Nagar to re-examine the petitioner's application in the light of Rule 99 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 and, in any case, if certain defects in the application come in light, the petitioner shall be put to a specific notice as regards the same and shall be provided full opportunity to make his submissions and produce necessary documents, if required. The application shall be decided, thereafter, strictly in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. Order Date :- 23.4.2025 Jyotsana Digitally signed by :- JYOTSANA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad