U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 – ss. 9(2), 11-A – Consolidation proceedings – Appellant-mahant of a temple, owner of plot bearing no. 212/2 and respondent owner of land bearing no. 319 – Consolidation proceedings – Appellant allotted portion of plot no. 212/2, 215 and 216 – Portion of plot no. 212/2 adjoining the road was treated as bachat land for use by the Gaon Sabha – One P allotted a very small portion of Plot No. 212/2 – Land reserved as bachat land for use by the Gaon Sabha and the land allotted to P adjoined the main road – Respondent also allotted a portion of Plot No. 215 – Appellant did not challenge the allotment of front portion of land as bachat land to be used by the Gaon Sabha or the allotment of land to P – One B, challenged the allotment of land in favour of respondent – Settlement Officer amended the allotment – Respondent was allotted land in plot 212/2 adjoining the main road – Bachat land was changed from one plot to another – Share of appellant also changed – Challenge to, by the appellant – High Court held that the appellant had no right to challenge the order of the Settlement Officer – Held: It is clear that the appellant would have had access to the road when the land was allotted to the Gaon Sabha as bachat land – They could have also used the land and his access to the road would not have been affected, had that portion of the land been not allotted to respondent – This order virtually nullified the earlier order and, thus, the appellant was well within his rights to challenge the order passed by the Settlement Officer in the appeal filed by B – If an order adversely affects any party, he has a right to challenge it – Appellant was not a party to the appeal filed by B, but by the said order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, the appellant was virtually denied access to the road – Thus, the Deputy Director, Consolidation was justified in entertaining the revision filed by the appellant and making re468 allotments – High Court erred in holding that the appellant had no right to challenge the order of the Settlement Officer because he had not challenged the original order in original proceedings whereby the front portion of the land was treated as bachat land – Later allotment of land to respondent and shifting of the bachat land gave rise to fresh cause of action to the appellant – Thus, the order of the High Court is set aside and the order passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation is restored.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Section 9(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 provides that any person to whom notice has been sent under Section 9(1) has to file objections before the Assistant Consolidation Officer within a period of 21 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Section 11 A provides that no question in respect of claims to land etc. relating to a consolidation area which might or ought to have been raised under Section 9(2) and were not raised at that stage, can be permitted to be raised or heard at subsequent stage of consolidation proceedings. The purpose of these two provisions is to ensure that when a draft scheme is prepared or notice of allotment of land is issued, then if a person has any objection to the same, he must file his objection at that stage and if he does not file the same, he cannot be permitted to raise these objections at a later stage. [Para 8][473-D-E]
1.2 Each case has to be decided on its own facts. In the instant case, the appellant had not objected to grant of a very small portion of land to ‘P’ and allotment of the front portion of the land as bachat land to be used by the Gaon Sabha. In this case, ‘B’, owner of Plot No. 215 and Plot No.216, filed appeal. Though this appeal was limited to challenging the allotment made to ‘D’, the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, while allowing the appeal, virtually nullified the original consolidation order and took away the land allotted to the appellant in Plot No. 215 and Plot No. 216 and re-allotted him his land in Plot No. 212/2, allotted land to the Gaon Sabha in Plot No. 216 and allotted the front portion of the land in Plot No. 212/2 to ‘P’ and ‘D’. It is clear from the map that the appellant would have had access to the road when the land was allotted to the Gaon Sabha as bachat land. The appellant could have also used the land and his access to the road would not have been affected, had that portion of the land been not allotted to ‘D’. This order virtually nullified the earlier order and, therefore, the appellant was well within his rights to challenge the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation in the appeal filed by ‘B’. It is well settled position of law that if an order adversely affects any party, he has a right to challenge it. The appellant was not a party to the appeal filed by ‘B’, but by the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation in the appeal filed by ‘B’, the appellant was virtually denied access to the road. Therefore, the Deputy Director, Consolidation was justified in entertaining the revision filed by the appellant and making re-allotments. [Para 10][473-F-H; 474A-C]
1.3 The High Court erred in holding that the appellant had no right to challenge the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation in the appeal filed by ‘B’ because he had not challenged the original order in original proceedings whereby the front portion of the land was treated as bachat land. The second order virtually nullified the earlier order and this gave a fresh cause of action to the appellant and he could challenge the same. As far as ‘P’ is concerned, she did not challenge the order passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation. The writ court did not take into consideration the averments made wherein ‘D’ had prayed that she should be re-allotted Plot No.319 and granted Rs.20,000/- as compensation for the construction she had raised in Plot No. 212/2. The order of the High Court is set aside and the order passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation is restored. The respondent, ‘D’ is directed to remove the entire construction at her own cost and hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the land to the appellant within the stipulated period. [Paras 11-13][474-E-H; 475-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.