Land Consolidation Dispute: Supreme Court Judgment on Allotment of Chak in Consolidation Case

The case of Hansraj vs. Mewalal and Others concerns a land consolidation dispute in the village of Bahria, District Basti, where the appellant, Hansraj, along with his brother Bansraj, were Bhumidhar of Plot No.677. This dispute arose due to a sale of a half share by Bansraj to the respondents, and the subsequent consolidation process initiated under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The main issue was about the allotment of chak (land allotment) and the rightful entitlement of the parties involved based on their possession and ownership of the land.

In this case, the appellant, as the original tenure holder of the plot, had his chak allotted on the southern side of the plot away from the newly constructed pitch road. However, the respondents, who were co-tenure holders due to the sale by Bansraj, sought their chak to be situated on the northern side of the plot, adjacent to the pitch road, claiming that they were in possession of the northern side of the plot. The matter went through several rounds of appeal and revision, finally reaching the Supreme Court for a final decision.

Background of the Case

The appellant, along with his brother, was the original holder of Plot No.677. In 1989, Bansraj sold his half share to the respondents, making them joint holders of the plot. The village in question came under the consolidation operation as per the provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The Assistant Consolidation Officer had proposed the allotment of chaks to both the appellant and the respondents, with the appellant’s chak situated on the southern side and the respondents’ chak proposed on the northern side, near the pitch road.

The respondents raised objections, claiming that the chak should be allocated according to their possession, which was towards the northern side of the plot. The Assistant Consolidation Officer allowed their objections, and the chak was allocated accordingly. However, the appellant filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, who reversed the Assistant Consolidation Officer’s order, and the appellant was given a chak on the pitch road. The respondents, in turn, filed a revision under Section 48 of the Act, which was also decided in their favor by the Deputy Director, Consolidation, whose order was then challenged in the High Court.

Arguments by the Appellant

The appellant, Hansraj, argued that:

He was the original tenure holder of Plot No.677, and therefore had the right to have his chak situated on the pitch road, which was now valuable due to its construction.
The consolidation operation should be implemented in a way that upholds his rights as a co-sharer of the plot, and the land adjacent to the road should rightfully belong to him.
The Settlement Officer’s decision to reverse the Assistant Consolidation Officer’s allocation was justified, as the pitch road area was already used by him for agricultural purposes, including a boring and pumping set.

Arguments by the Respondents

The respondents, Mewalal and others, argued that:

They were in possession of the northern side of Plot No.677, which was closer to the pitch road, and therefore, their chak should be situated on that side.
The consolidation process must respect the actual possession of the land, and the appellant’s chak allocation on the southern side of the plot was incorrect given the location of the respondents’ possession.
The Assistant Consolidation Officer’s decision was correct because it respected the actual possession of the parties as required under the law.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Judgment

The Supreme Court, in its examination of the case, noted the following:

The Consolidation Officer’s decisions regarding chak allotment were based on the possession and occupancy of the land, which was a critical factor under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
The Court observed that the purpose of the consolidation operation was to ensure that all co-tenure holders had equitable access to the plot in question and that the allotment of chaks should be done in a way that respected the actual possession of the parties.
Further, the Court emphasized that the consolidation operation should be executed in a manner that ensures fairness and avoids undue hardship for the parties involved, especially when it came to the equitable allocation of valuable land, such as that near the pitch road.

The Court noted the following critical statement:

“The consolidation process must respect the rights and actual possession of the parties, but it must also ensure that the distribution of land under the consolidation operation is done equitably, in a way that considers the collective interests of all co-tenure holders.”

The Court also observed:

“It is imperative that consolidation is done with regard to the actual possession and equitable distribution, while also taking into account the broader principle of fairness under the law. The respondents cannot claim rights over the entire northern part of the plot just based on possession without taking into account the appellant’s rightful stake in the plot.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant, Hansraj, and set aside the orders passed by the High Court. The Court reinstated the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation, which had allocated the chak on the pitch road to the appellant. The Court observed:

“The order of the High Court was based on an erroneous understanding of the consolidation process and the rights of the parties involved. The appellant, being the original holder of the land, is entitled to the chak adjacent to the pitch road, which is in accordance with the fairness of the consolidation process.”

The judgment underscored the importance of ensuring fairness in the consolidation process, which should align with the actual possession and historical rights of the parties involved, while also considering the practical needs of land use.

Conclusion

This ruling in the case of Hansraj vs. Mewalal & Others brings clarity to the interpretation and application of land consolidation laws, particularly regarding the equitable distribution of land and the rights of co-tenure holders in consolidation operations. It reaffirms the importance of fairness, transparency, and the need to respect the historical rights of landholders in consolidation processes.

Petitioner Name: Hansraj.
Respondent Name: Mewalal & Others.
Judgment By: Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice K.M. Joseph.
Place Of Incident: Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 09-01-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Hansraj vs Mewalal & Others Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 09-01-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Contract Disputes
See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Ashok Bhushan
See all petitions in Judgment by K.M. Joseph
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category