Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Hansraj, was the original Bhumidhar of Plot No.677 in Village Bahria, District Basti, along with his brother Bansraj. Bansraj sold his 1/2 share to the respondents (Mewalal and others) via a sale deed dated 12.10.1989. The village was brought under consolidation operations under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The Assistant Consolidation Officer prepared a provisional consolidation scheme proposing chaks to both the appellant and respondents on Plot No.677, which had a pitch road on its northern side constructed six years before consolidation. The respondents filed a belated objection under Section 21 of the Act, claiming they should be allotted chaks on the northern side of the plot where they were in possession. The Consolidation Officer allowed the objection, allotting chaks to the respondents on the pitch road and the appellant's chak on the southern side away from the road. The appellant appealed to the Settlement Officer Consolidation under Section 21(2), who set aside the Consolidation Officer's order and allocated chaks to all cosharers on the pitch road, including the appellant's chak with his boring and pumping set and Ram Milan's chak on the north-east corner where he was constructing a house. The respondents filed a revision under Section 48 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who affirmed the Settlement Officer's order after spot inspection. Aggrieved, the respondents filed a writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad, which allowed the petition and restored the Consolidation Officer's order. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that since there was no partition of the holding under Section 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950, all cosharers had rights over the entire plot. The Settlement Officer's equitable allocation, ensuring all cosharers got chaks on the pitch road, was justified and should not have been interfered with by the High Court. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and dismissed the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Consolidation of Holdings - Equitable Allocation of Chak - Rights of Cosharers - The appellant, original tenure holder of Plot No.677, and respondents, co-tenure holders by sale deed, were entitled to chaks on the pitch road constructed prior to consolidation. The Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation allocated chaks to all cosharers on the pitch road, which was equitable. The High Court erred in restoring the Consolidation Officer's order that allocated chaks only to respondents on the pitch road, ignoring that the appellant's chak included his boring and pumping set and that Ram Milan's chak included his house. (Paras 8-12)
B) Partition of Agricultural Holding - Section 176 U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Until a holding is partitioned under Section 176, every cosharer has a right over the entire holding. Since no partition had taken place, the appellant could not be denied a chak on the pitch road. (Paras 11-12)
C) Consolidation of Holdings - Section 21 U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Objections under Section 21(1) - The Consolidation Officer allowed belated objections and allocated chaks based on possession, but the Settlement Officer Consolidation, after spot inspection, modified the allocation to ensure all cosharers got chaks on the pitch road, which was upheld by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The High Court's interference under Article 226 was unwarranted. (Paras 2-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the orders of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation which had allocated chaks to all cosharers on the pitch road, and whether the appellant, as original tenure holder, was entitled to a chak on the pitch road.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment dated 25.07.2013 and order dated 20.01.2014, and dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondents. No costs.
Law Points
- Consolidation of Holdings
- Equitable Allocation of Chak
- Rights of Cosharers
- Partition of Agricultural Holding
- Section 176 U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act
- 1950
- Section 21 U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act
- 1953
- Section 48 U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act
Case Details
Civil Appeal Nos.8788 of 2019
Ashok Bhushan, K.M. Joseph
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeal against High Court judgment in a consolidation dispute under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
Remedy Sought
The appellant sought setting aside of the High Court's judgment that restored the Consolidation Officer's order, and restoration of the orders of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation.
Filing Reason
The appellant was aggrieved by the High Court's judgment allowing the respondents' writ petition and setting aside the orders of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation, which had allocated chaks to all cosharers on the pitch road.
Previous Decisions
The Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed chaks to all parties on the pitch road. The Consolidation Officer allowed the respondents' objection and allocated chaks to them on the pitch road, placing the appellant's chak away from the road. The Settlement Officer Consolidation allowed the appellant's appeal and allocated chaks to all cosharers on the pitch road. The Deputy Director of Consolidation affirmed that order. The High Court allowed the respondents' writ petition and restored the Consolidation Officer's order.
Issues
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the orders of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation which had allocated chaks to all cosharers on the pitch road.
Whether the appellant, as original tenure holder, was entitled to a chak on the pitch road despite the respondents' possession on the northern side.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant: Being original tenure holder and cosharer, he was entitled to a chak on the pitch road. The Consolidation Officer's order was inequitable and rightly reversed by the Settlement Officer and Deputy Director.
Respondents: No appearance before the Supreme Court.
Ratio Decidendi
Until a holding is partitioned under Section 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950, every cosharer has a right over the entire holding. In consolidation proceedings, chaks should be allocated equitably to ensure all cosharers get access to road frontage. The High Court erred in interfering with the equitable orders of the Settlement Officer and Deputy Director of Consolidation, which were based on spot inspection and ensured all cosharers got chaks on the pitch road.
Judgment Excerpts
The appellant was original holder of the Plot No.677/1. When in the northern side of the plot a pitch road was constructed which was prior to consolidation operation, the cosharers of Plot No.677 were entitled to get the benefit of road and when the Settlement Officer of Consolidation had carved the chaks in the manner that all the cosharers including the appellant and respondents were given the chaks on the pitch road which order was confirmed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, we see no valid reason for the High Court to reverse the orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Settlement Officer Consolidation.
It is relevant to note that agricultural holding can be partitioned by instituting the proceedings under Section 176 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950... Till holding is divided in accordance with Section 176 every cosharer of plot has right on the holding.
Procedural History
The Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed chaks on the pitch road. The Consolidation Officer allowed the respondents' objection under Section 21(1) and allocated chaks to them on the pitch road, placing the appellant's chak away from the road. The appellant appealed under Section 21(2) to the Settlement Officer Consolidation, who allowed the appeal and allocated chaks to all cosharers on the pitch road. The respondents filed a revision under Section 48 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who affirmed the order. The respondents then filed a writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad, which allowed the petition and restored the Consolidation Officer's order. The appellant filed a review, which was dismissed. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Acts & Sections
- U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953: 21, 21(1), 21(2), 48
- U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950: 176
