U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 – Consolidation Scheme – Proposal of chaks – Assistant Consolidation Officer proposing chaks to the appellant-original tenure holder and respondents-co tenure holder on the plot opening towards pitch road in the north of the plot – Objections to the proposed chaks by the respondents that their possession is towards north of the plot whereas appellant is in possession towards south of the plot, as such proposed chaks should be in accordance with their possession – Objections allowed – Challenge to, by the appellant – Settlement Officer holding that the appellant was original tenure holder of plot, gave appellant chak on pitch road including area where his boring and pumping set was situated and joint holder was given chak on the north east side where he started construction – Upheld by the Deputy Director Consolidation – Writ petition thereagainst, allowed by the High Court – Sustainability of – Held: Not sustainable – All the co-sharers had right in the plot and holdings were not partitioned as per law – Appellant was fully justified in claiming right of allotment on a portion of plot on the pitch road – There was no justifiable reason for setting aside the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and Deputy Director, Consolidation – Equity was adjusted by the order of Settlement Officer in making the chak in the manner that chak of every cosharer was on the pitch road which needed no interference by the High Court – Thus, the order of the High Court set aside – U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 – s. 176.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 When in the northern side of the plot a pitch road was constructed which was prior to consolidation operation, the co-sharers of plot 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 co-sharers including the appellant and respondents were given the chaks on the pitch road which order was confirmed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, there is 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 indicate that the High Court had noticed that as house of one of the petitioners (writ petitioners) is situated in the north eastern side and boring and pumping set of the appellant is situated in the southern side, the High Court justified the order of the Consolidation Officer. The High Court lost sight of the fact that by amendment made by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, one of the writ petitioners, R was allotted chak at the north east corner on the Plot where his house was in existence and the appellant was given the chak also on pitch road including his boring and pumping set. [Para 10][220-D-H]
1.2 Even though parties were in possession of some portions of the plot by mutual arrangement, there was no partition of holding. The agricultural holding can be partitioned by instituting the proceedings u/s. 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950. Till holding is divided in accordance with section 176 every co-sharer of plot has right on the holding. It is not the case of any of the parties that holding was partitioned by an order obtained under Section 176. All the co-sharers 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 R 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 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 instant case, equity was adjusted by the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation in making the chak in the manner that chak of every co-sharer 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. The orders of the High Court are unsustainable and are set aside [Paras 11-13][221-AB, D-H; 222-A-B]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.