Uttarakhand High Court
Shishya Society vs State Of Uttarakhand & Ors on 30 April, 2026
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
1
Reportable
Judgment reserved on: 06.04.2026
Judgment delivered on: 30.04.2026
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Misc. Single No.1722 of 2020
Shishya Society, Atak Farm --Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Ors. --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, appeared
through V.C.
Mr. Tarun Lakhera, learned Brief Holder for the State of
Uttarakhand/respondents.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
The present writ petition has been filed by petitioner
seeking a direction to the respondents to register the Gift-deed
dated 17.07.2018 presented for registration to the Registrar vide
receipt No.74/23 and returned it to petitioner-Society and
further to declare that the provisions of Section 154(3) of the
Uttarakhand Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950
(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), as applicable to State of
Uttarakhand, are not applicable to Gift-deed; and alternate relief
of directing the respondents to impound the document and refer
it to competent authorities for adjudication after hearing the
petitioner.
2. The facts of the case are that petitioner is a society
registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, having its
office at Atak Farm, P.O. Selakui, District Dehradun. The
present writ petition has been filed through its Treasurer, who
has been duly authorized by a Board Resolution dated
12.08.2020. It is stated that a parcel of land bearing Khasra No.
353/1/7, measuring 300 square meters, situated at Atak Farm,
Kheri Village, Selakui, District Dehradun, was transferred in
favour of petitioner-society by another society, namely, Inter
Mission Industrial Development Association, by way of a Gift
Deed dated 17.07.2018. The said Gift Deed was presented
before Sub-Registrar, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun for registration on
17.07.2018. The requisite registration fee amounting to Rs.
21,710/- was deposited and the necessary formalities, were
2
completed. A receipt bearing No. 74/23 dated 17.07.2018 was
issued in this regard. However, despite completion of formalities,
the document was not returned to the petitioner. Upon
approaching the office of the Sub-Registrar after a few days, the
petitioner was informed that the registration had been
postponed, though no written order to that effect was
communicated. Subsequently, on 16.10.2018, the petitioner
submitted a complaint before the District Registrar/Collector,
Dehradun, stating that the Sub-Registrar had neither registered
the document nor impounded it, and requested appropriate
directions in the matter. The complaint was thereafter marked
to the concerned authority for consideration. It is further stated
that thereafter, the registering authorities sought reports and
opinions from various departments, however, no final decision
was taken, and the document remained neither registered nor
impounded. The petitioner also sought information under the
Right to Information Act and obtained copies of certain
correspondence and opinions on 16.07.2019. After a lapse of
more than two years from the date of presentation of the
document, no action was taken by the Sub-Registrar or the
concerned authorities, either to register the document or to
impound and refer it for adjudication under the relevant
provisions of law.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that
the action of respondent authorities in withholding registration
of the Gift Deed is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to provisions of
the Registration Act. He further argued that the Sub-Registrar is
under a statutory obligation either to register the document or
to impound and refer it for adjudication, and cannot indefinitely
keep the matter pending. He further contended that even if
provisions of Section 154 of the Act are attracted, the authority
was required to follow due procedure under Sections 166/167 of
the Act and could not refuse registration in limine.
4. It has also been strongly argued by learned counsel
for petitioner that the transaction in question is a gift and not a
sale, and therefore, does not fall within the mischief of Section
154(3) of the Act. According to petitioner, restriction contained
3
in Section 154 of the Act pertains primarily to transfers by way
of sale and not to gratuitous transfers such as gifts. It is further
submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the donor
society was a bhumidhar with transferable rights, as evidenced
by the revenue records, and therefore, competent to execute the
Gift Deed. On these premises, it is argued that the refusal or
failure to register the document is unsustainable in law.
5. Learned State Counsel has opposed the writ petition
by submitting that the document in question, though styled as a
Gift Deed, is in substance a transfer of immovable property and
therefore squarely governed by the provisions of Section 154 of
the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 as
applicable to the State of Uttarakhand. It is contended that the
statutory restriction imposed under Section 154 of the Act is not
confined to sale alone but extends to all forms of transfer,
including gift, as is evident from the definition of “gift” under
Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act. According to the
State, petitioner cannot be permitted to circumvent the
statutory mandate by merely labeling the transaction as a gift
when in effect it results in transfer of proprietary rights.
6. It is further submitted by learned State Counsel that
the land in question measures 300 square meters, whereas the
statutory framework under Section 154(4)(1)(a) of the Act
permits transfer of land only up to 250 square meters without
prior approval of competent authority. In the present case, no
such prior permission was obtained by petitioner before
execution of the Gift Deed. Petitioner, being a society and not a
tenure-holder within the meaning of the Act, is mandatorily
required to obtain such approval. In absence thereof, the
transaction is clearly hit by the provisions of Section 154 of the
Act and is liable to be treated as void, and therefore, the
registering authority was justified in refusing registration.
7. Learned State counsel has also argued that the Sub-
Registrar has acted strictly within the bounds of his statutory
authority. It is submitted by learned State Counsel that the
function of registering authority is not merely mechanical, and
where a document appears to be in contravention of law, the
4
authority is competent to refuse registration and refer the
matter to learned District Registrar/Collector for appropriate
action. In the present case, upon finding the document not fit
for registration, the same was referred to learned District
Registrar, Dehradun in terms of legal advice received, and such
action cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or
arbitrariness warranting interference by this Court.
8. It is contended by learned State Counsel that
petitioner has misconstrued the applicable statutory provisions,
including the Uttarakhand amendments and the Ordinance of
2003, and has failed to demonstrate as to how the restrictions
under Section 154 of the Act are not attracted in the present
case. It is further contended by him that petitioner has
attempted to cure lacunae in its case by filing documents at a
belated stage through supplementary affidavits, which reflects
lack of due diligence. In these circumstances, it is urged that
the writ petition is devoid of merit, no mandamus can be issued
for registration of a document which is ex facie contrary to law,
and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the entire material available on record, this
Court finds that the controversy lies in a narrow compass,
namely, whether the restrictions contained in Section 154 of the
Act, as applicable to the State of Uttarakhand, are confined only
to a transfer by way of sale, as contended by petitioner, or
whether they extend to all modes of transfer, including a gift. At
the outset, it is necessary to notice the legal meaning of the
expression “transfer”. Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act,
1882 provides that “‘transfer of property’ means an act by which
a living person conveys property, in present or in future, to one
or more other living persons…” Section 122 of the said Act
further provides that “‘Gift” is the “transfer” of certain existing
movable or immovable property made voluntarily and without
consideration…” Thus, a gift is a recognized mode of transfer,
and forms part of the broader category of transfers of property.
10. Turning to provisions of Section 154 of the Act, it
would be appropriate to notice the relevant statutory scheme in
5
some detail. Section 154(1) provides in clear terms that “save as
provided in sub-section (2), no bhumidhar shall have the right to
transfer by sale or gift any land…”. The legislative language thus
expressly brings within its fold both sale and gift as recognized
modes of transfer and subjects them to statutory restriction.
The use of the words “sale or gift” leaves no manner of doubt
that the embargo is not confined to one form of transfer but
extends to multiple recognized modes.
11. Section 154(4)(3)(a) of the Act, as applicable in the
State of Uttarakhand, further provides as follows:
“Subject to restrictions contained in Section 154, a person,
society or corporate body may purchase land for purposes
other than agriculture and horticulture, with the prior
sanction of the Government in the State of Uttarakhand, as
may be prescribed.”
12. The provision, when read in its plain terms, makes it
abundantly clear that acquisition of land by a person, society or
corporate body for non-agricultural purposes is not an
unfettered right, but is conditioned upon obtaining prior
sanction of the State Government. The expression “subject to
restrictions contained in Section 154 of the Act” assumes
significance, as it incorporates within sub-section(3) the entirety
of the regulatory framework governing transfers. The
requirement of prior sanction is thus a condition precedent, and
not a mere procedural formality.
13. Section 154(4) of the Act, as amended and
applicable in the State, carves out certain limited exceptions to
the general restriction, which is quoted hereinbelow:-
“154(4)(1)(a) Subject to other restrictions and save as
otherwise provided in this Act, “any person for his own or on
behalf of his family (which means husband, his wife, minor
children, unmarried sons, unmarried daughters and
dependent parents) even though he is not a tenure holder
under Section 129 or the owner of any immovable property in
Uttarakhand, may purchase land not exceeding 250 sq. mts.
for residential purpose in his lifetime without the permission;
(b) A registered agreement to sell the land executed on or
before 12.9.2003 shall be valid if the sale deed on the basis
of such agreement is executed on or before 31.3.2004,
irrespective of any time limit provided in the agreement,
unless extended by the Collector of the district for reasons to
be recorded in writing.
(2) Nothing in sub-section 154(3) shall be deemed to prohibit
the transfer of land by any person in favour of-
6
(a) the State Government or Central Government or a
Government company, as defined in Section 617 of the
Companies Act. 1956 or a Statutory Body or Corporation or
Board established by or under a Statute and owned and
controlled by the State or Central Government;
(b) a person who has become a non-tenure on account of-
(i)acquisition of his land for any public purpose under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894; or(ii)vestment of his land in the
tenants under this Act;
(c) a non-tenure holder who purchases or intends to purchase
land for the construction of a house or shop or purchases a
built-up house or shop from the State Housing Board or from
a Development Authority or from any other Statutory
Corporation set up under any State or Central enactment;
(e) a person or company according to Industrial Policy of
Uttaranchal in (i) Integrated Industrial Development Centre,
(ii) Industrial Area, (iii) Industrial Estates;
(f) a person, society or trust for religious purposes;(g)a
landless labourer of the Uttaranchal; or(h)a landless person
belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe of the
Uttaranchal; or(i)a village artisan of the Uttaranchal; or(j)a
landless person carrying on an allied pursuit of the
Uttaranchal.
(3)(a) Subject to restrictions contained in Section 154, a
person, society or corporate body may purchase land for the
following purposes, other than those for Agriculture and
Horticulture purposes, with the prior sanction of the
Government in the State of Uttaranchal as may be
prescribed-
(i)Medical or health purposes, if it conforms to the Health
and Population Policy of Uttaranchal;
(ii)Hotel, Lodge, Guest House, Restaurant, Bar, Spa, way
side amenities or resort, if it conforms to the Tourism
Policy of the State;
(iii)Educational purposes, on the recommendations of the
Department of Education;
(iv)Cultural purposes; and
(v)For industrial purposes in areas other than those
mentioned in Section 154(4)(2)(e) or for other purposes.
(b) A person, society or company may purchase land with
prior sanction of the Collector of the district for Agricultural or
Horticultural purposes, as may be prescribed, on furnishing
an affidavit to the effect that such land will be used for
Agricultural or Horticultural purposes and for uses incidental
to and connected with Agriculture or Horticulture only. If the
land use of such land as mentioned in the Affidavit is
changed, the said transfer shall be void and consequences of
Section 167 shall follow:
Provided that a person who is a non-tenure holder but
purchases land either under Section 154(4)(1)(a), 154(4)(2)(c)
and 154(4)(2)(f) or under the sanction granted under Section
154(4)(3) shall, irrespective of such purchase of land,
continue to be a bhumidhar of special category as provided
under Section 129-B and such bhumidhar shall be eligible to
purchase land in future only with the permission, of the State
Government or Collector of the district as the case may be
:Provided further that such bhumidhar may mortgage or
hypothecate such land for obtaining loan from banks and
financial institutions or deriving any other benefit accruing
from his bhumidhari rights under Section 129:
7
Provided further that a non-tenure holder who has
purchased land under Section 154(4)(2)(e), 154(4)(2)(f) and
who has purchased land under Section 154(4)(3) under the
sanction of Government or Collector, as the case may be,
shall put land to such use for which the sanction has been
granted within a period of two years or further such period
as may be allowed by the State Government for reasons to
be recorded in writing, to be counted from the date of
registration of sale deed and if he fails to do so or diverts the
use of the land for which it was sanctioned or transfers the
land by way of sale, gift or otherwise except for the purpose
for which it was purchased, such transfer shall be void for
the purpose of this Act, and consequences of Section 167
shall follow”
14. These provisions demonstrate that while certain
relaxations are contemplated, they are narrowly tailored,
conditional, and operate within the structured framework of the
statute. The exemption permitting purchase of land up to 250
sq. mtr., without permission is clearly confined to individuals for
residential use and cannot be extended to institutional bodies
such as societies. Conversely, where a society or corporate body
seeks to acquire land for specified purposes, even the exception
itself mandates prior sanction of the State Government. The
submission advanced on behalf of petitioner that section
154(4)(3)(a) of the Act employs the expression “purchase” and
therefore applies only to sale, excluding other modes of transfer
such as gift, cannot be accepted. A statutory provision cannot
be read in isolation or in a manner that defeats the object of the
enactment. Section 154 constitutes a composite and integrated
scheme regulating transfers of land. Sub-sections (1), (3) and (4)
are required to be read harmoniously. Once sub-section (1)
expressly recognizes transfer by way of gift, it is not permissible
to isolate Section 154(4)(3)(a) of the Act and construe it narrowly
so as to exclude gift from the regulatory regime. This position is
further reinforced by the general law governing transfers.
Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act defines “transfer of
property” in the widest possible terms, and Section 122 thereof
specifically recognizes gift as a mode of transfer. Therefore,
when the Act regulates “transfer” of land and expressly includes
gift under sub-section (1), the regulatory mechanism under
Section 154 cannot be rendered inapplicable merely because a
particular sub-clause uses the expression “purchase”. Any such
8
interpretation would enable circumvention of statutory
restrictions by resorting to indirect modes such as gift, which is
impermissible in law.
15. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions thus
leads to the conclusion that where land is sought to be
transferred in favour of a society or institutional body for non-
agricultural purposes, prior sanction of the State Government is
a sine qua non. In the present case, the transfer is admittedly in
favour of a society. The record does not disclose that any prior
sanction, as contemplated under Section 154(4)(3)(a) of the Act
or even under the exception carved out in Section 154(4)(3) of
the Act, was ever obtained from the State Government or the
competent authority. In absence of such mandatory approval,
the transaction is clearly hit by the statutory limit. The reliance
placed by the petitioner on Section 154(4) of the Act saying that
it was not a sale purchase is, therefore, wholly misconceived.
The said provision, being in the nature of an exception, must
receive strict construction. The petitioner, being a society, does
not fall within the limited category of individuals contemplated
under Section 154(4)(1)(a) of the Act, and even otherwise, the
requirement of prior sanction, as envisaged under Section
154(4)(3)(a) of the Act, has not been complied with.
Consequently, the transaction in question cannot be sustained
in law.
16. The object of the enactment is also of significance.
The Act is a piece of socio-economic legislation intended to
regulate land holdings and prevent circumvention of statutory
restrictions. Acceptance of the petitioner’s interpretation would
enable a party to bypass restrictions imposed upon sale by
resorting to a gift, thereby rendering the statutory control
superfluous. Such an interpretation cannot be admitted in law.
The reliance placed by the petitioner on principles of strict
interpretation applicable to penal statutes is misplaced. Section
154 of the Act is not penal in nature but regulatory, and
therefore warrants a purposive construction. Similarly, the
reliance upon Section 154(4)(1)(a) of the Act is misconceived, as
the said provision is in the nature of an exception and applies
9
only in limited circumstances, particularly in relation to
individuals acquiring land for residential purposes within a
prescribed limit, or in cases where prior sanction has been
obtained for specified institutional purposes. In the present
case, the transfer is admittedly by way of a gift in favour of a
society, and no prior sanction, as contemplated under the
statutory scheme, has been obtained. In view of the
interpretation placed above, the contention of the petitioner that
such a transaction falls outside the purview of Section 154 is
untenable. The matter necessarily requires examination by the
competent authority in accordance with law.
17. Insofar as the action of the Sub-Registrar is
concerned, the record reveals that the document presented by
the petitioner has neither been registered nor has any formal
order of refusal been passed. It is equally evident that the Sub-
Registrar has not taken recourse to the procedure contemplated
under the statutory framework by referring the matter to the
competent authority under Section 154(5)(a) and (b) of the Act.
Instead, the document has been kept pending without any
conclusive action. Section 154(5)(a) and (b) of the Act is
extracted hereinbelow:-
“154(5)(a) the Registrar or Sub-Registrar appointed under the
Indian Registration Act, 1908 before whom any document
pertaining to transfer of land is presented for registration
comes to know or has reason to believe that the transfer of
land is in contravention of Section 154(3) or 154(4)(3); or
(b) a Revenue Officer either on an application submitted to
him or on receipt of any information from any source comes
to know or has reason to believe that the land has been
transferred in contravention of the provisions of Section 152-
A, 154(3), 154(4)(2)(e), 154(4)(2)(f) or 154(4)(3), such Sub-
Registrar, Registrar or Revenue Officer, as the case may be,
shall make a reference to the Collector of the district, who
shall determine whether the transfer is in contravention of
the provision of this Act in the manner prescribed and the
consequences of Section 167 shall follow in respect of every
transfer which is void”
18. Such inaction is clearly contrary to the scheme of
the Act, which requires the authority, upon forming a prima
facie opinion regarding violation of Section 154 of the Act, to
take steps in accordance with law and not to indefinitely
withhold the document. However, the aforesaid procedural lapse
10
on the part of the Sub-Registrar does not, by itself, confer any
right upon the petitioner to seek a mandamus for registration of
the document. The question as to whether the transaction in
question is hit by the provisions of Section 154 of the Act
involves examination of relevant facts and application of the
statutory provisions, which falls within the domain of the
competent authority and not this Court in exercise of its writ
jurisdiction. The petitioner having failed to establish any legal
right to compel registration, no interference is warranted.
19. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the interpretation advanced by the
petitioner is untenable and no ground for issuance of a writ of
mandamus for registration of the document is made out.
20. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
21. It is, however, observed that the Sub-Registrar shall
proceed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154(5)(a)
and (b) of the Act and take appropriate steps within 15 days
from today by referring it to Collector, Dehradun, who shall
proceed strictly in accordance with the provision of Section
154(5)(b) of the Act in a time bound manner.
22. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
30.04.2026
PN
