IAS Anjaneya Kumar Singh’s 2024 Order Under Scrutiny Over ₹40-Crore Government Land in Rampur
A 2024 order passed by the Moradabad Divisional Commissioner’s Court during the tenure of IAS officer Anjaneya Kumar Singh has come under scrutiny over the ownership of government land worth approximately ₹40 crore in Uttar Pradesh’s Rampur district.
The dispute centres on a 4,355.72-square-metre plot situated near Sarai Darwaza in the Sadar tehsil of Rampur. According to government revenue records, the property is registered under Khata No. 11 and Gata No. 34/1 and is classified as government land.
However, through an order passed in 2024, the Commissioner’s Court recognised the ownership rights of a private businessman, Dr. Mahmood Ali Khan, over the disputed property.
The matter resurfaced when Khan approached the Rampur Collectorate with the court order and sought the entry of his name in the official revenue records and the state’s Bhulekh land-records portal.
During the subsequent verification process, officials reportedly found that the land continued to be recorded as government property. The district administration consequently put the mutation process on hold and sought guidance from the Commissioner and the Secretary of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Revenue regarding the appropriate legal and administrative course of action.
How Did the ₹40-Crore Land Dispute Begin?
According to reports, Dr. Mahmood Ali Khan claimed that he had purchased the disputed land from Wajahat Ali Rizvi on April 6, 2019.He subsequently attempted to carry out construction activities on the property. However, the district administration reportedly intervened and stopped the work.
Following this development, Khan approached the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Rampur, seeking recognition as a ‘Sankramaniya Bhumidhar’. Under Uttar Pradesh land laws, a Sankramaniya Bhumidhar is a landholder who enjoys transferable rights over the property, including the right to sell or transfer it, subject to applicable legal provisions.
The SDM court, however, rejected his plea on January 16, 2024. It maintained that the disputed property belonged to the state government and that it lacked the jurisdiction to confer the requested ownership status over the land.
Moradabad Commissioner’s Court Overturned the SDM’s Decision
Unhappy with the SDM court’s ruling, Dr. Mahmood Ali Khan approached the Moradabad Divisional Commissioner’s Court by filing an appeal. His case reportedly relied on Section 207 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, which provides for appeals against specified orders passed by revenue authorities.
In 2024, the Commissioner’s Court reversed the SDM’s decision and ruled in favour of the businessman. It recognised him as a Sankramaniya Bhumidhar, thereby acknowledging transferable rights over the disputed property. IAS officer Anjaneya Kumar Singh was serving as Moradabad Divisional Commissioner when the order was passed.
The Commissioner’s Court reportedly based its decision on the applicability of provisions under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, to Non-ZA land situated within Rampur’s municipal limits.
Why Has the Classification of the Land Become Crucial?
A major aspect of the controversy concerns the classification of the disputed property in government revenue records. The land is reportedly categorised under Category 15 of the Non-ZA classification. Non-ZA refers to land falling outside the general framework of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms system.
The property is also reportedly recorded as government land under the description of ‘Shikmi Kashtkar’. This classification has become central to the dispute because different categories of Non-ZA land may attract different legal provisions and ownership rules.
The administration’s concern is that a property recorded as government land may have been granted transferable private ownership rights through the Commissioner’s Court order. The question, therefore, is whether the legal provisions relied upon in the 2024 order were applicable to this particular category of land.
Earlier Board of Revenue Decisions Raise Further Questions
The legal basis of the Commissioner’s Court ruling has also come under discussion in light of earlier decisions of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Revenue. According to reports, the Moradabad Commissioner’s Court referred to an earlier case titled Uttar Pradesh Government vs Akhilesh Kumar, decided by a member of the Board of Revenue in Lucknow.
However, the earlier matter reportedly concerned Category 5 Non-ZA land, whereas the present dispute involves Category 15 land. The distinction is significant because the legal treatment of one category of land cannot automatically be assumed to apply to another.
Another relevant precedent is an order dated June 5, 2023, passed by a member of the Board of Revenue in Prayagraj in the matter of Uttar Pradesh Government vs Jameel Khan. In that case, the Board reportedly rejected a private individual’s ownership claim concerning Non-ZA land in Rampur.
The earlier proceedings also examined whether provisions of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act could be extended uniformly to every category of land in Uttar Pradesh.
Government Land Ownership Dispute Awaits Further Clarity
The Rampur land dispute has brought the interpretation of Non-ZA land classifications, the scope of revenue authorities’ powers and the protection of government property into focus.
With the mutation process reportedly on hold, the district administration is seeking clarity on the legal implications of the 2024 order and the appropriate steps required to safeguard the government’s interests.
The central issue remains whether the disputed property could legally be recognised as privately transferable land despite its classification in government revenue records.The matter has also drawn attention to the importance of consistency in applying land laws and judicial precedents, particularly in cases involving valuable public property.
