Supreme Court returns roadside plot handed to strangers in a 1978 consolidation scheme

Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria dismiss an appeal against the Allahabad High Court, which had restored a Basti plot to its original tenure holders after a dispute that began in consolidation proceedings.

The Supreme Court on 5 November 2026 refused to disturb an Allahabad High Court order directing that a roadside plot in Basti district be restored to its original tenure holders. The plot had been allotted in consolidation proceedings to people who, by their own admission, had no right in it.

A bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria dismissed the civil appeal, with no order as to costs. The judgment, written by Justice Bhatti, is marked non-reportable.

Consolidation reaches Plot No. 159

The dispute concerns Plot No. 159 in village Barahpur Pandey, Pargana Amorha, Tehsil Harraiya, District Basti, Uttar Pradesh. Consolidation operations began in the village on 12 October 1973 under Section 4(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

The plot was included in the Statement of Principles prepared on 12 October 1974. Notices inviting objections under Section 9 went out on 31 October 1974, and the parties say they received none.

The provisional Consolidation Scheme was published on 3 April 1978. The Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed carving out chaks and allotted portions of the plot to the appellants, Rama Pandey and others. The appellants admitted they had no right in it.

Possession of the chaks was delivered on 28 April 1982. The respondents, who said they were the original tenure holders, complained that they had been moved off the roadside plot and given udan chaks.

Remand, spot inspection and a reversal

On 13 January 1986 the Assistant Director of Consolidation, Basti, allowed the respondents’ revision with connected revisions and set aside the allotment scheme. He remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer to carve out chaks afresh.

He found that the roadside land, on village roads leading towards the Ayodhya market, had high commercial value and had been irregularly allotted. Persons with no original holding near the road were arbitrarily allotted chaks on it, he found, while others got far more roadside land than their original holdings.

He also found incorrect postings in the consolidation forms, one of which lacked the officers’ signatures. Such widespread illegality, he held, could not be cured at the revisional stage.

On remand, the Consolidation Officer again confirmed the allotment to the appellants by an order of 6 June 1992. The respondents appealed to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, who inspected the spot and recorded that the plot abuts the main road and that the original right holders had not been properly allotted.

By an order of 18 September 1992 the Settlement Officer concluded that the plot had been included in consolidation contrary to the procedure and Government circulars. The Deputy Director of Consolidation reversed that order on 31 December 1992 in a common order. The respondents then filed Civil Writ Petition No. 1895 of 1993 in the Allahabad High Court.

What the High Court ordered

The High Court examined the dispute in detail and set aside the Deputy Director’s order. It relied on Clause 5 of a Circular of 9 September 1988, which reinforces an earlier Circular of 26 May 1981. Roadside lands of commercial value, the circulars direct, should not be included in consolidation.

The High Court said Section 19 of the Act and the circulars support the tenure holder. Such land should be excluded from consolidation. If it is kept in, it should go to the original tenure holders.

It held that consolidation was not meant to dislodge tenure holders from prime land by allotting it to strangers.

The plot had been valued and the petitioners had not questioned that valuation under Section 8-A. So the Settlement Officer could not justify excluding the land under Section 11-A. The valuation, it said, should be adjusted against the land due to the petitioners.

The High Court called the Deputy Director’s allotment of roadside land to strangers while rejecting the tenure holder’s claim a manifest illegality. It directed the Deputy Director to issue a fresh order restoring the plot to the original tenure holders in their respective ratios within two months, and to restore possession within a further two months.

It rejected the appellants’ plea of equity based on structures they had raised. Those were built in haste after the Deputy Director’s order of 31 December 1992, though the writ petition was filed in January 1993 and an interim stay was granted on 29 January 1993.

The arguments before the bench

Mr. Punit Vinay, for the appellants, argued that the objections to the provisional allotment came nearly four years after the allotment of 28 April 1982. The High Court’s basis for reversal, that the roadside parcel should have been excluded from consolidation, was misplaced, he said. The 1988 Circular did not apply.

He added that the respondents had been granted land abutting the subject plot. He also said the High Court wrongly assumed only one revision was pending before the Deputy Director.

Mr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav, for the respondents, argued that the consolidation had been carried out contrary to the circulars. People entitled to confirmation, he said, had been removed from the plot and allotted land elsewhere, with no valid ground.

He said the four-year period the appellants relied on did not apply once the Consolidation Officer’s order was set aside for apparent illegalities. The Settlement Officer’s spot inspection report, he added, showed the inclusion to be prima facie illegal.

Why the High Court order stood

The bench said the record did not make clear whether the plot’s valuation or its physical location had been properly considered in consolidation. It noted that the appellants admittedly held no right in the plot, while the respondents were the original tenure holders.

The Settlement Officer’s spot inspection report and order of 18 September 1992 made clear that the plot abuts the highway. Inclusion of the plot and its allotment to appellants with no preferential right, the bench said, was not supported by any valid reason.

It found that the Deputy Director had recorded mechanical reasons for setting aside the Settlement Officer’s order. As the High Court had noted, the Consolidation Officer had not considered these crucial aspects. The High Court was right to interfere and had acted within its jurisdiction.

The appellants’ contentions did not outweigh the High Court’s reasoning, the bench said. It preferred the Settlement Officer’s spot inspection, which showed the plot abutting a main road.

The bench’s reasons are short. The judgment does not separately take up the four-year delay argument or the contention that the 1988 Circular was inapplicable.

Order

The Supreme Court granted leave and dismissed the civil appeal, which arose from Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 15053 of 2017. It saw no ground to interfere with the High Court’s judgment, so the direction to restore the plot to the original tenure holders stands.

There was no order as to costs, and pending applications were disposed of.