The Supreme Court has upheld an Allahabad High Court judgment that restored a roadside plot in Uttar Pradesh’s Basti district to its original tenure holders. During consolidation proceedings, the plot had been allotted to persons who had no right over it. The Court said that allotment was not supported by any valid reason.
A Bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria dismissed the appeal filed by the allottees.
Background
The dispute concerns Plot No. 159 in village Barahpur Pandey, Tehsil Harraiya, District Basti. Consolidation operations under the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 began in the village on 12 October 1973. In the provisional consolidation scheme of 1978, the Assistant Consolidation Officer allotted portions of the plot to the appellants. Possession was handed over on 28 April 1982.
The respondents, who claimed to be the original tenure holders, complained that they had been displaced from the roadside plot. In 1986, the Assistant Director of Consolidation found that roadside land of high commercial value had been allotted arbitrarily. He remanded the matter for fresh carving out of chaks.
On remand, the Consolidation Officer again allotted the plot to the appellants. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation (SOC) inspected the spot, recorded that the plot abuts the main road, and set the allotment aside on 18 September 1992. On 31 December 1992, the Deputy Director of Consolidation (DDC) reversed the SOC’s order.
The High Court set aside the DDC’s order. It held that under the circulars of 1981 and 1988, roadside land of commercial value should not be included in consolidation. It added that if such land is included, it should be allotted to its original tenure holders. The High Court said the purpose of consolidation was not to dislodge tenure holders from their prime land by allotting it to strangers.
Arguments
Punit Vinay, appearing for the appellants, argued that the respondents’ objections came nearly four years after the allotment. He submitted that the 1988 circular did not apply and that the respondents had been given land next to the plot.
Pradeep Kumar Yadav, appearing for the respondents, argued that the consolidation went against the circulars then in force. He said the roadside land should never have been included, and that the SOC’s spot inspection showed its inclusion was prima facie illegal.
Court’s Findings
The Court noted that the appellants admittedly had no right over the plot and that the respondents were the original tenure holders. It held:
“The inclusion of the subject matter and its allotment to the Appellants, who have no preferential right, is not supported by any valid reason.”
The Bench found that “The DDC recorded mechanical reasons for setting aside the SOC’s Order.” It gave preference to the SOC’s spot inspection, which showed that the plot abuts a main road. It held that “The High Court has been well within its jurisdiction and has recorded findings on the DDC’s erroneous approach.”
Outcome
The Court found no ground to interfere with the High Court’s judgment and dismissed the appeal. It made no order as to costs.
Case Title: Rama Pandey and Others v. Ram Lal (Dead) Through LR. and Others
Case No.: Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 15053 of 2017
Bench: Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria
Date: November 5, 2026
