Rama Pandey vs Ram Lal (Dead) Thr Lr.

Court
Supreme Court





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)


J U D G M E N T

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
LOKESH ARORA
Date: 2026.11.05
18:23:43 IST
Reason:
on 12.10.1974. On 31.10.1974, Notices were issued inviting objections under
Section 9 of the Act. The parties state that they received no objections. On
1





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.
2





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
3





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-
the subject matter. On the contrary, the Respondents are the original
vis
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.
7