HANSRAJ vs. MEWALAL

1 REPORTABLE    THE IN     SUPREME     COURT     OF    INDIA   CIVIL   APPELLATE     JURISDICTION   CIVIL   APPEAL     NOS.87­88     Of    2019  HANSRAJ               ...APPELLANT(S)  VERSUS MEWALAL AND ORS.          ...RESPONDENT(S)   J U D G M E N T ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. The   appellant   aggrieved   by   the   judgment   of   the High Court of Allahabad in Writ­B No.55952 of 2012 has come   up   in   these   appeals.   The   High   Court   by   the impugned   judgment   dated   25.07.2013   has   allowed   the writ   petition   filed   by   the   private   respondents   by setting   aside   the   order   dated   28.04.2012   of   the Settlement   Officer   Consolidation   and   order   dated 19.07.2012 of Deputy Director of Consolidation. 2 2. The   brief   facts   necessary   to   be   noticed   for deciding these appeals are: The appellant along with his brother Bansraj were Bhumidhar of Plot No.677 of Village Bahria, District Basti. Bansraj, brother of the appellant by sale deed dated   12.10.1989   sold   his   1/2   share   in   favour   of respondents. The Village in question was brought under Consolidation operation after issuance of notification under   the   U.P.   Consolidation   of   Holdings   Act,   1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Assistant Consolidation   Officer   prepared   a   provisional Consolidation Scheme proposing chaks to the appellant as   well   as   respondents   on   Plot   No.677   of   which appellant   was   original   tenure   holder   and   the respondents were co­tenure holders by virtue of sale deed from Bansraj. In the northern side of Plot No.677 a pitch road was constructed six years before start of Consolidation   operation.   The   Assistant   Consolidation Officer   proposed   chaks   to   the   appellant   and   the respondents opening towards pitch road in the north of Plot  No.677.  The  respondents  filed  belated  objection 3 under Section 21 of the Act objecting to the chaks as proposed  by  the  Assistant Consolidation  Officer.  The case of the objectors was that they should be proposed chaks   on   Plot   No.677   in   accordance   with   their possession.   They   stated   that   Their   possession   is towards north of the plot whereas the appellant is in possession   towards   South   of   the   Plot   No.677.   The Consolidation Officer allowed the objection  filed by the  respondents.  The  respondents  were allotted  chaks on the pitch road towards north, the chak of appellant was   carved   on   the   south   of   the   plot   away   from   the pitch road.  3. The appeal was filed by the appellant before the Settlement   Officer   Consolidation   under   Section   21(2) of the Act. The Settlement Officer Consolidation noted that   appellant   was   original   tenure   holder   of   Plot No.677   and   Ram   Milan   etc.   have   also   become   joint holders on the basis of the sale deed. Ram Milan was constructing   a   house   on   the   north   east   side   of   the plot after obtaining permission of Settlement Officer Consolidation   which   construction   was   stopped   on   the 4 objection   of   the   appellant.   The   Settlement   Officer Consolidation   concluded   that   it   would   be   legal   and appropriate   to   give   chak   to   all   the   joint   holders adjacent to pitch road.   The appeal was allowed. Ram Milan was given chak on the north east side where he started construction. The appellant was given chak on the   pitch   road   including   area   where   his   boring   and pumping set was situated. 4. Against   the   order   of   the   Settlement   Officer Consolidation   revision   was   filed   by   the   respondents under   Section   48   of   the   Act.   The   Deputy   Director, Consolidation   affirmed   the   order   of   the   Settlement Officer   Consolidation.   The   Deputy   Director, Consolidation   has   also   inspected   the   spot   and   found that all the co­tenure holders have been allotted chak adjacent   to  the  pitch  road  and   if  the  claim  of   the revisionist   is   allowed   the   appellant   shall   not   get chak adjacent to pitch road which would be illegal. 5. Aggrieved   by   the   order   of   the   Deputy   Director, Consolidation   a   writ   petition   was   filed   by   the 5 respondents.   Learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition has given the following reasons: "I   have   considered   the   arguments   of   the learned counsel for the parties and examined the   material   available   on   record.   From   the perusal   of   the   order   of   Consolidation Officer, it is proved that the house of one of   the   petitioners   is   situated   in   the northern side and boring and pumping set of respondent no.3 are situated in the southern side as such severance of the possession on the   spot   is   fully   proved.   In   the circumstances of the case, the Consolidation Officer has rightly allotted the chak to the petitioners   in   the   northern   side   and   no interference was required in it. The orders of   Settlement   Officer   Consolidation   as   well as   Deputy   Director   of   Consolidation   are illegal and are liable to be set aside.” 6. Learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   submits   that appellant being original tenure holder of Plot No.677 he was co­sharer on the entire plot and was rightly proposed  chak by  the  Assistant  Consolidation  Officer on a part of the pitch road. The area on the pitch road   became   valuable   after   construction   of   the   road and the appellant could not have been denied his chak on the part of pitch road. The Consolidation Officer committed error in setting aside chak proposed by the Assistant   Consolidation   Officer,   which   was   rightly 6 reversed  by  the  Settlement  Consolidation  Officer  and Deputy   Director,   Consolidation.   He   submitted   that there   was   no   partition   of   the   agricultural   land   in accordance   with   law   nor   there   was   any   right   in   the respondents to claim chak comprising the entire area of the plot on the pitch road.  7. No one appeared for the respondents. 8. As   noted   above,   the   Assistant   Consolidation Officer has proposed chaks to the parties which were all   on   the   pitch   road.     The   Consolidation   Officer allowed the objection filed by the respondents under Section 21(1) by allocating chaks to the respondents on the northern side of the plot on the pitch road by carving the chak of the appellant on the southern side away   from   the   pitch   road.   The   Consolidation   Officer allowed the objection of the respondents by noticing following reasons: “(i) The objectors are cultivating as per the sketch maps produced by them. (ii) The House of Ram Milan is situated on the northern eastern corner. 7 (iii) The Assistant Consolidation Officer has not   shown   the   chak   of   Ram   Milan   in   his proposal.” 9. The Settlement Officer Consolidation set aside the order of Consolidation Officer in the appeal filed by the   appellant.   The   Settlement   Consolidation   Officer has allotted the chak to Ram Milan on the north east corner. The Settlement Officer Consolidation allocated the chaks of the parties in the manner that every one was allotted the chak on the pitch road. The reason for   altering   the   chaks   by   the   Consolidation   Officer with regard to Ram Milan was fully satisfied by the Settlement   Officer   of   Consolidation   since   he   was allotted the chak where he was constructing the house. In the chak of the appellant, the trees and boring and pumping   set   were   also   included   to   maintain   the possession of the parties on the plot. 10. 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 8 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.   The   reasons   as   given   by   the High Court, as noticed above, indicate that the High Court   had   noticed   that   as   house   of   one   of   the petitioners   (writ   petitioners)   is   situated   in   the north­eastern side and boring and pumping set of the appellant is situated in the southern side, the High Court   has   justified   the   order   of   the   Consolidation Officer.   The   High   Court   has   lost   sight   of   the   fact that   by   amendment   made   by   the   Settlement   Officer Consolidation, one of the writ petitioners, Ram Milan was allotted chak at the north east corner on the Plot No.677   where   his   house   was   in   existence   and   the appellant   was   given   the   chak   also   on   pitch   road 9 including his boring and pumping set. 11. There   is   one   more   reason   due   to   which   no interference   was   required   in   the   order   of   the Settlement   Officer   Consolidation   and   the   Deputy Director, Consolidation,  i.e.,  the  appellant  and  the respondents were all co­sharers of Plot No.677. Even though parties were in possession of some portions of the   plot   by   mutual   arrangement,   there   was     no partition   of   holding.   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   which   is   as follows: “176.   Holding   of   a   bhumidhar   or   sirdar divisible.  ­   (1)   A   bhumidhar   may   sue for [division] of his holding. (2) To every such suit the Gaon Sabha concerned   shall be made a party.” Till holding is divided in accordance with Section 176 every co­sharer of plot has right on the holding.  10 12. It   is   not   the   case   of   any   of   the   parties   that holding   was   partitioned   by   an   order   obtained   under Section 176.  All the co­sharers had right in the plot in question and holdings were not partitioned as per law.   The   appellant   was   fully   justified   in   claiming right of allotment on a portion of plot on the pitch road. The Assistant Consolidation Officer has proposed the chaks to the parties in a manner so that every one gets     chak   on   the   pitch   road.   The   Consolidation Officer has reversed the allotment of chaks by putting the appellant on the southern side away from the road and allocating the chaks on the pitch road in favour of the respondents which order was rightly reversed by the Settlement Officer of the Consolidation which was an equitable order by which Ram Milan who was given chak including the area where he was constructing the house on  the  north­eastern  portion  of the plot.  The appellant was allotted an area comprising his pumping set and also by allocating chak part of which was  on pitch road, other respondents were allotted the chak in such a manner that everyone got their chak on the 11 pitch   road.   There   was   no   justifiable   reason   for setting   aside   the   order   of   the   Settlement   Officer Consolidation   and   Deputy   Director,   Consolidation.   It is   to   be   noticed   that     Settlement   Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director while passing their orders   have   also   inspected   the   spot   and   the   orders passed by them were on the basis of spot inspection. The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Act 226 committed error in allowing the writ petition by   restoring   the   order   of   the   Consolidation   Officer which   was   an   inequitable   order.   In   the   facts   and circumstances of the present case, equity was adjusted by   the   order   of   Settlement   Officer   of   Consolidation in making the chak in the manner that chak of every co­sharer was on the pitch road which order needed no interference by the High Court. The appellant filed a review which was too dismissed by the High Court on 20.01.2014. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that orders of the High Court are unsustainable 12 and   are   hereby   set   aside.   The   appeals   are   allowed, judgment   dated   25.07.2013   as   well   as   order   dated 20.01.2014 are set aside. The writ petition filed by the respondents stand dismissed. No costs. ..........................J.     ( ASHOK BHUSHAN ) ..........................J. ( K.M. JOSEPH ) NEW DELHI, JANUARY 09, 2019.