Supreme Court of India
HANSRAJversusMEWALAL AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2019 INSC 41
- Decided
- 9 January 2019
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- ASHOK BHUSHAN
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the Settlement Officer’s and Deputy Director’s orders allocating chak to all co‑sharers on the pitch road were valid and could not be set aside, as the holding had not been partitioned under law.
Summary
The appellant, Hansraj, was the original bhumidhar of Plot No.677 in Village Bahria, Basti, and a co‑sharer with respondents who had acquired a half‑share by sale. Under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, the Assistant Consolidation Officer initially proposed chaks for all co‑sharers on the pitch road that ran along the northern side of the plot. The respondents objected under Section 21, claiming allocation should follow their actual possession, leading the Consolidation Officer to re‑allocate the appellant’s chak to the southern side away from the road. The Settlement Officer, on appeal, restored the original allocation giving each co‑sharer a chak on the pitch road, a decision affirmed by the Deputy Director after spot inspection. The High Court set aside those orders, but the Supreme Court held that, since the holding had not been partitioned under Section 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950, all co‑sharers were entitled to chak on the pitch road and the High Court’s interference was erroneous. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment and allowed the appeals.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court could set aside the orders of the Settlement Officer and Deputy Director under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 concerning chak allocation.
- Whether co‑sharers have a right to a portion of the plot without a formal partition under Section 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950.
- Whether the objection raised under Section 21 of the Consolidation Act can override the original chak proposal made by the Assistant Consolidation Officer.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Consolidation of holdingschak allocationco‑sharersland reformpartitionSection 176Section 21equityHigh Court reversalSupreme Court
Judgment
[2019] 1 S.C.R. 215 215
HANSRAJ A
v.
MEWALAL AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 87-88 of 2019)
JANUARY 09, 2019 B
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND K. M. JOSEPH, JJ]
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 – Consolidation
Scheme – Proposal of chaks – Assistant Consolidation Officer
proposing chaks to the appellant-original tenure holder and
C
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 D
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,
E
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, F
Consolidation – Equity was adjusted by the order of Settlement
Officer in making the chak in the manner that chak of every co-
sharer 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.
G
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
H
215
216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 1 S.C.R.
A 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
B
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
C 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]
D
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
E 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
F 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
G 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
H pitch road, other respondents were allotted the chak in such a
HANSRAJ v. MEWALAL AND ORS. 217
manner that everyone got their chak on the pitch road. There A
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
B
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 C
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-A-
B, D-H; 222-A-B]
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 87-88
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.07.2013 of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ B No. 55952 of 2012 and order
dated 20.01.2014 in Civil Misc. Review Application No. 250902 of 2013. E
Ashok Kumar Singh, Shantwanu Singh, Advs. for the appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. 1. The appellant aggrieved by the
judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in Writ-B No.55952 of 2012 F
has come up in these appeals. The High Court by the impugned judgment
dated 25.07.2013 has allowed the writ petition filed by the private
respondents by setting aside the order dated 28.04.2012 of the Settlement
Officer Consolidation and order dated 19.07.2012 of Deputy Director of
Consolidation.
G
2. The brief facts necessary to be noticed for deciding these
appeals are:
The appellant along with his brother Bansraj were Bhumidhar
of Plot No.677 of Village Bahria, District Basti. Bansraj, brother of the
appellant by sale deed dated 12.10.1989 sold his 1/2 share in favour of
H
218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 1 S.C.R.
A respondents. The Village in question was brought under Consolidation
operation after issuance of notification under the U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The Assistant
Consolidation Officer prepared a provisional Consolidation Scheme
proposing chaks to the appellant as well as respondents on Plot No.677
of which appellant was original tenure holder and the respondents were
B
co-tenure holders by virtue of sale deed from Bansraj. In the northern
side of Plot No.677 a pitch road was constructed six years before start
of Consolidation operation. The Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed
chaks to the appellant and the respondents opening towards pitch road
in the north of Plot No.677. The respondents filed belated objection under
C Section 21 of the Act objecting to the chaks as proposed by the Assistant
Consolidation Officer. The case of the objectors was that they should be
proposed chaks on Plot No.677 in accordance with their possession.
They stated that Their possession is towards north of the plot whereas
the appellant is in possession towards South of the Plot No.677. The
Consolidation Officer allowed the objection filed by the respondents.
D
The respondents were allotted chaks on the pitch road towards north,
the chak of appellant was carved on the south of the plot away from the
pitch road.
3. The appeal was filed by the appellant before the Settlement
Officer Consolidation under Section 21(2) of the Act. The Settlement
E Officer Consolidation noted that appellant was original tenure holder of
Plot No.677 and Ram Milan etc. have also become joint holders on the
basis of the sale deed. Ram Milan was constructing a house on the north
east side of the plot after obtaining permission of Settlement Officer
Consolidation which construction was stopped on the objection of the
F appellant. The Settlement Officer Consolidation concluded that it would
be legal and appropriate to give chak to all the joint holders adjacent to
pitch road. The appeal was allowed. Ram Milan was given chak on the
north east side where he started construction. The appellant was given
chak on the pitch road including area where his boring and pumping set
was situated.
G
4. Against the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation
revision was filed by the respondents under Section 48 of the Act. The
Deputy Director, Consolidation affirmed the order of the Settlement
Officer Consolidation. The Deputy Director, Consolidation has also
inspected the spot and found that all the co-tenure holders have been
H
HANSRAJ v. MEWALAL AND ORS. 219
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
allotted chak adjacent to the pitch road and if the claim of the revisionist A
is allowed the appellant shall not get chak adjacent to pitch road which
would be illegal.
5. Aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Director, Consolidation a
writ petition was filed by the respondents. Learned Single Judge while
allowing the writ petition has given the following reasons: B
“I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the
parties and examined the material available on record. From the
perusal of the order of Consolidation Officer, it is proved that the
house of one of the petitioners is situated in the northern side and
boring and pumping set of respondent no.3 are situated in the C
southern side as such severance of the possession on the spot is
fully proved. In the circumstances of the case, the Consolidation
Officer has rightly allotted the chak to the petitioners in the northern
side and no interference was required in it. The orders of Settlement
Officer Consolidation as well as Deputy Director of Consolidation
are illegal and are liable to be set aside.” D
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant being
original tenure holder of Plot No.677 he was co-sharer on the entire plot
and was rightly proposed chak by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on
a part of the pitch road. The area on the pitch road became valuable
after construction of the road and the appellant could not have been E
denied his chak on the part of pitch road. The Consolidation Officer
committed error in setting aside chak proposed by the Assistant
Consolidation Officer, which was rightly reversed by the Settlement
Consolidation Officer and Deputy Director, Consolidation. He submitted
that there was no partition of the agricultural land in accordance with F
law nor there was any right in the respondents to claim chak comprising
the entire area of the plot on the pitch road.
7. No one appeared for the respondents.
8. As noted above, the Assistant Consolidation Officer has
proposed chaks to the parties which were all on the pitch road. The G
Consolidation Officer allowed the objection filed by the respondents under
Section 21(1) by allocating chaks to the respondents on the northern
side of the plot on the pitch road by carving the chak of the appellant on
the southern side away from the pitch road. The Consolidation Officer
allowed the objection of the respondents by noticing following reasons:
H
220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 1 S.C.R.
A “(i) The objectors are cultivating as per the sketch maps produced
by them.
(ii) The House of Ram Milan is situated on the northern eastern
corner.
(iii) The Assistant Consolidation Officer has not shown the chak
B of Ram Milan in his proposal.”
9. The Settlement Officer Consolidation set aside the order of
Consolidation Officer in the appeal filed by the appellant. The Settlement
Consolidation Officer has allotted the chak to Ram Milan on the north
east corner. The Settlement Officer Consolidation allocated the chaks
C of the parties in the manner that every one was allotted the chak on the
pitch road. The reason for altering the chaks by the Consolidation Officer
with regard to Ram Milan was fully satisfied by the Settlement Officer
of Consolidation since he was allotted the chak where he was constructing
the house. In the chak of the appellant, the trees and boring and pumping
D set were also included to maintain the possession of the parties on the
plot.
10. The appellant was original holder of the Plot No.677/1. When
in the northern side of the plot a pitch road was constructed which was
prior to consolidation operation, the co-sharers of Plot No.677 were entitled
E 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, we see
no valid reason for the High Court to reverse the orders passed by the
Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Settlement Officer
F Consolidation. The reasons as given by the High Court, as noticed above,
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 has justified the order of the Consolidation Officer. The High Court
G has lost sight of the fact that by amendment made by the Settlement
Officer Consolidation, one of the writ petitioners, Ram Milan was allotted
chak at the north east corner on the Plot No.677 where his house was in
existence and the appellant was given the chak also on pitch road including
his boring and pumping set.
H
HANSRAJ v. MEWALAL AND ORS. 221
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
11. There is one more reason due to which no interference was A
required in the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the
Deputy Director, Consolidation, i.e., the appellant and the respondents
were all co-sharers of Plot No.677. Even though parties were in
possession of some portions of the plot by mutual arrangement, there
was no partition of holding. It is relevant to note that agricultural holding
B
can be partitioned by instituting the proceedings under Section 176 of
U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 which is as follows:
“176. Holding of a bhumidhar or sirdar divisible. - (1) A
bhumidhar may sue for [division] of his holding.
(2) To every such suit the Gaon Sabha concerned shall be made C
a party.”
Till holding is divided in accordance with Section 176 every co-
sharer of plot has right on the holding.
12. 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 D
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 E
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 Ram Milan
who was given chak including the area where he was constructing the
house on the north-eastern portion of the plot. The appellant was allotted F
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 G
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
H
222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 1 S.C.R.
A an inequitable order. In the facts and circumstances of the present 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
on 20.01.2014.
B
13. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that
orders of the High Court are unsustainable and are hereby set aside.
The appeals are allowed, judgment dated 25.07.2013 as well as order
dated 20.01.2014 are set aside. The writ petition filed by the respondents
stand dismissed. No costs.
C
Nidhi Jain Appeals allowed.
D
E
F
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Consolidation of holdings"Sign in to search