The Supreme Court has upheld an Allahabad High Court judgment directing restoration of a commercially valuable roadside plot to its original tenure holders, finding no valid reason for allotting the land during consolidation proceedings to persons who had no preferential right over it.
The Bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria found that the Deputy Director of Consolidation had recorded mechanical reasons for reversing an order protecting the original tenure holders and that the High Court was justified in intervening.
Read More: 90+ Supreme Court Judgments E-Magazine – October 2026
Consolidation operations commenced in the village on October 12, 1973, under Section 4(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The disputed plot was included in the Statement of Principles prepared in October 1974, following which notices inviting objections under Section 9 were issued.
The provisional consolidation scheme was published on April 3, 1978. Portions of the disputed plot were allotted to the appellants as chaks, or consolidated land holdings. Possession was delivered to the allottees on April 28, 1982.
The respondents, who claimed to be the original tenure holders, challenged their displacement from the roadside plot and the allotment of udan chaks elsewhere. The judgment records that the appellants admitted they had no pre-existing right over the disputed land.
The Assistant Director of Consolidation allowed the respondents’ revision along with connected revisions, set aside the allotment scheme and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
The authority found that the village roads led towards Ayodhya, where the market was situated, giving roadside land substantial commercial value. Persons without original holdings near the road had been allotted roadside chaks, while others received roadside areas exceeding their original holdings.
The inquiry also revealed incorrect entries in consolidation records, discrepancies in valuation and area, and inconsistencies with the Sector Register. Certain records lacked the signatures of the Assistant Consolidation Officer and the Consolidation Officer.
Given the extent of the irregularities, the authority directed reconsideration of the chak objections, examination of duplicate and left-out entries, and fresh carving out of village chaks.
Following the remand, the Consolidation Officer again confirmed the allotment in favour of the appellants on June 6, 1992.
The original tenure holders appealed to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. After conducting a spot inspection, the officer recorded that the plot abutted the main road and that the original right holders had not been properly allotted land.
By an order dated September 18, 1992, the Settlement Officer concluded that inclusion of the disputed land in consolidation was contrary to the applicable procedure and government circulars.
However, the Deputy Director of Consolidation reversed that decision on December 31, 1992. The original tenure holders then challenged the revisional order before the Allahabad High Court.
The High Court referred to circulars dated May 26, 1981, and September 9, 1988, concerning roadside land of commercial value. It held that the principles underlying Section 19 of the Act and the circulars supported the original tenure holders’ claim.
According to the High Court’s findings summarised in the Supreme Court judgment, such land ought to be excluded from consolidation operations. Even where retained within the scheme, it ought to be allotted to its original tenure holders.
The High Court reasoned that consolidation proceedings were not intended to dislodge tenure holders from prime land by allotting it to strangers.
It also addressed a procedural qualification: valuation had already been assigned to the plot and apparently had not been challenged under Section 8-A. Consequently, the Settlement Officer could not justify excluding the land from consolidation in view of Section 11-A. Nevertheless, the valuation should have been adjusted against the land required to be allotted to the original tenure holders.
The High Court directed the Deputy Director to issue a fresh order restoring allotment of the plot to the original tenure holders in their respective ratios within two months. Possession was to be restored within a further two months.
It also rejected an equity claim based on construction, noting that structures had been raised in haste after the December 1992 order, while the writ petition followed in January 1993 and an interim stay was granted on January 29, 1993.
The appellants argued that objections had been raised nearly four years after allotment. They disputed the applicability of the September 1988 circular and submitted that the respondents had received land abutting the disputed plot.
They also questioned the High Court’s understanding of the revisions pending before the Deputy Director.
The respondents maintained that the consolidation exercise had unlawfully displaced the original tenure holders. They relied on the earlier remand for apparent illegalities and the Settlement Officer’s spot inspection. They argued that the appellants’ reliance on the four-year interval could not sustain an allotment already set aside for serious irregularities.
The Supreme Court observed that the record did not clearly establish whether the plot’s valuation or physical location had been properly considered during consolidation.
The Bench attached weight to the Settlement Officer’s spot inspection report and September 1992 order, which established that the disputed land abutted the highway.
It noted that the appellants had no right over the plot, whereas the respondents were its original tenure holders. The inclusion of the property in consolidation and its allotment to persons without a preferential right lacked a valid justification.
The Court further found that the Deputy Director had recorded mechanical reasons for setting aside the Settlement Officer’s order. Crucial aspects of the dispute had also escaped the Consolidation Officer’s consideration.
The High Court had acted within its jurisdiction in correcting the Deputy Director’s erroneous approach. The appellants’ submissions did not outweigh the reasoning supporting the High Court’s decision.
Finding no ground for interference, the Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal without any order as to costs. Pending applications were also disposed of.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
