RAMA PANDEY AND OTHERS v. RAM LAL (DEAD) THROUGH LR. AND OTHERS

2026 INSC 1199 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 [@ S.L.P. (C) No. 15053 of 2017]

RAMA PANDEY AND OTHERS … APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

RAM LAL (DEAD) THROUGH LR. AND OTHERS … RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

S.V.N. BHATTI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The Respondents filed Civil Writ Petition No. 1895 of 1993 in the High

Court of Judicature at Allahabad, challenging the Order of the Deputy Director

of Consolidation, Basti Camp, Parasrampur (“DDC”). In the impugned

Judgment, the High Court reversed the DDC’s Order dated 31.12.1992.

3. The subject matter of the Appeal is Plot No. 159 of village Barahpur

Pandey, Pargana Amorha, Tehsil Harraiya, District Basti, Uttar Pradesh. On

12.10.1973, consolidation operations commenced in the subject village under

Section 4(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (“the

Act”). The subject matter was included in the Statement of Principles prepared Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by

on 12.10.1974. On 31.10.1974, Notices were issued inviting objections under LOKESH ARORA Date: 2026.11.05 18:23:43 IST Reason:

Section 9 of the Act. The parties state that they received no objections. On

03.04.1978, the provisional Consolidation Scheme was published, and the

Assistant Consolidation Officer (“ACO”), by proposing the carving out of chaks,

allotted portions of the subject matter to the Appellants herein. The Appellants

also admitted that they had no right in the subject matter. On 28.04.1982,

the authorities delivered possession of the chaks to the allottees. Respondents

claimed to be the original tenure holders and complained of displacement from

the roadside plot and allotment of udan chaks.

4. On 13.01.1986, the Assistant Director of Consolidation, Basti (“ADC”)

allowed the Respondents' revision along with connected Revisions, set aside

the allotment scheme, and remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer

to carve out chaks afresh. The ADC found that the roadside land in the subject

matter had been irregularly allotted to persons, thereby denying the original

plot holders. The gist of the ADC’s Order is set out below:

a) On perusal of the records and spot inspection, it is found that the main

village roads lead towards Ayodhya, where the market is situated, thereby

giving roadside land high commercial value.

b) That persons with no original holding near the road were arbitrarily

allotted chaks on the road, whereas others were allotted roadside areas far

exceeding their original holdings.

c) That C.H. Form 2A and C.H. Form 23 Part (1) contained incorrect postings,

discrepancies in valuation and area, and entries that did not match the

Sector Register.

d) The ACO committed serious illegalities and arbitrary allotments in

violation of repeated Directorate instructions.

e) That C.H. Form 23 Part (1) lacked the signatures of the ACO and the

Consolidation Officer, necessitating an administrative explanation. Such

widespread illegalities, arbitrary roadside allotments, and large-scale

leave-outs (bachat) could not be addressed at the revisional stage.

f) Allowed the revisions, set aside the orders of the Consolidation Officer and

the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, and remanded the matter to the

Consolidation Officer to reconsider the chak objections, re-examine the

double and bachat entries, and carve out the village chaks afresh within

one month, in accordance with the Directorate’s instructions.

5. On remand, the Consolidation Officer, by Order dated 06.06.1992,

again confirmed the allotment of the subject matter in favour of the

Appellants. The Respondents, aggrieved by the Order dated 06.06.1992, filed

Appeal No. 695 of 1992 before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Basti

(“SOC”).

6. The SOC conducted a spot inspection and recorded that the subject

matter abuts the main road and that the original right holders were not

properly allotted. Based on this observation, vide its Order dated 18.09.1992,

the SOC concluded that, contrary to the extant procedure and the circulars

issued by the Government, the subject matter had been included in the

Consolidation under the Act. Aggrieved by the above Order, the parties

preferred Revision before the DDC. On 31.12.1992, the DDC reversed the SOC

order dated 18.09.1992 via a common Order. Respondents filed the instant

Writ Petition challenging the Order dated 31.12.1992. Through the impugned

Order, the High Court examined the crux of the controversy in detail and set

aside the DDC order dated 31.12.1992. The findings in the impugned Order

can be summarised as under:

a. Clause 5 of the Circular dated 09.09.1988 reinforces the earlier Circular

dated 26.05.1981 and directs that roadside lands of commercial value

should not be included in consolidation operations.

b. The principal under Section 19 of the Act and the circulars issued from

time to time support the case of the Tenure Holder, as they provide that

such land ought to be excluded from the consolidation scheme, and even

if it is retained in the consolidation scheme, allotment of such land ought

to be made to the persons who were the original Tenure Holders of such

land.

c. The purpose of the consolidation proceedings was not to dislodge tenure

holders from their prime land by allotting it to strangers. Being tenants of

the land situated on the roadside, the tenure holder was apparently

entitled to retain it.

d. Since a valuation had been assigned to the subject matter, which the

petitioners apparently did not question under Section 8-A, the SOC could

not justify excluding the land from consolidation operations under Section

11-A of the Act. Nevertheless, that valuation ought to have been adjusted

against the land required to be allotted to the petitioner. The DDC has

committed manifest illegality in allotting roadside land to strangers while

rejecting the tenure holder’s claim.

e. It directed the DDC to issue a fresh Order restoring allotment of the subject

matter to the original tenure holders in their respective ratios within two

months, with possession to be restored within a further two months. 4

f. The petitioners’ plea of equity based on raising structures was rejected

because the constructions were raised in haste after the DDC Order dated

31.12.1992, even though the writ petition was filed in January 1993 and

an interim stay was granted on 29.01.1993.

7. Hence the Civil Appeal.

8. Mr. Punit Vinay, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, submits

that the objections to the provisional allotment dated 28.04.1982 were raised

nearly four years after the allotment. The basis for reversing the DDC’s order

is that the parcel of land abutting the road was excluded from the

consolidation proceedings. The Circular dated 09.09.1988 is inapplicable. The

Respondents/Objectors were granted lands abutting the subject Plot. The

High Court proceeded on the erroneous assumption that only one Revision

was pending before the DDC.

9. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav, learned Counsel appearing for the

Respondents, argues that the consolidation was undertaken contrary to the

extant Circulars. Through the consolidation, persons entitled to confirmation

are removed from the subject matter and are allotted elsewhere. Neither a valid

reason nor any ground warrants the course adopted by the Consolidation

Officer. The roadside land, in the first place, should not have been included in

the consolidation. The consolidation dislodges persons in possession and

entitled to confirmation of the subject matter. Aggrieved by the allotment, the

Respondents preferred a Revision before the ADC, who allowed it and

remanded the matter. The 4-year term relied on by the Appellants is

inapplicable once the Consolidation Officer’s Order is set aside for apparent

illegalities. The SOC has conducted a spot inspection, and the Spot Inspection 5

Report establishes that the inclusion of the subject matter in the

Consolidation Proceedings is, prima facie, illegal.

10. We have taken note of the respective submissions and perused the

record. Let us first set out the circumstances before addressing the points

urged by the Appellants.

11. In the Consolidation Proceedings, the record does not make it clear

whether the valuation of the subject matter or its physical location was

properly considered. The Appellants, admittedly, did not hold any right vis-à-

vis the subject matter. On the contrary, the Respondents are the original

tenure holders. The SOC’s Spot Inspection Report and its Order dated

18.09.1992 make it clear that the subject matter abuts the highway. The

inclusion of the subject matter and its allotment to the Appellants, who have

no preferential right, is not supported by any valid reason. The DDC recorded

mechanical reasons for setting aside the SOC’s Order. As noted in the

impugned Judgment, the Consolidation Officer did not consider these crucial

aspects. The High Court, therefore, was right to interfere with the DDC’s Order

dated 31.12.1992. The High Court has been well within its jurisdiction and

has recorded findings on the DDC's erroneous approach. The Appellants'

contentions are merely noted and do not outweigh the reasoning adopted in

the impugned Judgment. In the circumstances of the case, the preference is

given to spot inspection of the SOC, and the location appears to abut a main

road. The inclusion of such property in the Consolidation is satisfactorily

stated by the original allotment. The High Court rightly interfered with the

allotment by denying it to the original tenure holder and allotting it to the

Appellants, who have no tenure right. 6

12. For the reasons stated above, we see no ground to interfere with the

impugned Judgment. The Civil Appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to

costs.

13. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

...……….…………………J. [S.V.N. BHATTI]

...…………………………J. [N. V. ANJARIA]

New Delhi; November 5, 2026.