HANSRAJ versus MEWALAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2019] 1 S.C.R. 215 · Decided: 09-01-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
215
HANSRAJ
v.
MEWALAL AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 87-88 of 2019)
JANUARY 09, 2019
[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
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
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,
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,
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.
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
[2019] 1 S.C.R. 215
215
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
216
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
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
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
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]
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
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
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
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
pitch road, other respondents were al

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.