Roadside Plot Must Return To Original Tenure-Holders, Not Allottees With No Tenure Rights: Supreme Court Upholds Allahabad HC

Consolidation proceedings commenced in the village in 1973.

Plot No. 159, a roadside parcel, was allotted to the appellants, who admittedly had no rights in it; the respondents claimed to be its original tenure holders

In 1986, the Assistant Director of Consolidation set aside the allotment scheme and remanded the matter for fresh allotments, citing irregularities, including arbitrary allotment of valuable roadside land.

After a fresh allotment in the appellants’ favour, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation found that the respondents had not been properly allotted the land.

The Deputy Director of Consolidation reversed that decision, but the High Court set aside the Deputy Director’s order and directed restoration of the parcel to the original tenure holders.

The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Court considered the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, including its provisions governing consolidation operations and allotments, and the circulars concerning roadside land of commercial value.

The High Court had relied on Section 19 and the circulars dated 26 May 1981 and 9 September 1988 in holding that such land should be excluded from consolidation or, if retained, allotted to its original tenure holders.

The Supreme Court’s decision applied the principle that a consolidation allotment of valuable roadside land must have a valid basis, particularly where the allotment displaces original tenure holders in favour of persons with no tenure right in the land.

No precedent was cited.

The record did not show that the parcel’s valuation or physical location had been properly considered, while the appellants admitted that they had no rights in it and the respondents were its original tenure holders.

The Settlement Officer’s spot inspection and order established that the parcel abutted the highway and that the original holders had not been properly allotted it.

In those circumstances, the Court found no valid reason for allotting the parcel to the appellants and agreed that the Deputy Director had relied on mechanical reasons in reversing the Settlement Officer.

The appellants’ objections did not outweigh the High Court’s reasoning.

It dismissed the appeal, leaving in place the High Court’s direction to restore the parcel to the original tenure holders; it made no order as to costs.