1. Tenure holders challenged the consolidation allotment of roadside plots, asserting that such valuable commercial land should either be excluded from consolidation or allotted to original tenure holders. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 1337
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.V.N. BHATTI, N. V. ANJARIA, JJ.
Rama Pandey And Others – Appellants
Versus
Ram Lal (Dead) Through Lr. And Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6595 of 2026 [@ S.L.P. (C) No. 15053 of 2017]
Decided On : 05-11-2026
Important Points
Roadside land of high commercial value should be excluded from consolidation or, if included, must be allotted to original tenure holders rather than strangers lacking tenure rights, ensuring original holders are not dislodged from prime land.
Subject
Civil Law - Land Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Sections 4(2), 9, 19 - Roadside lands of commercial value should be excluded from consolidation operations or, if retained, should be allotted to the original tenure holders - Purpose of consolidation proceedings is not to dislodge tenure holders from prime land by allotting it to strangers (Paras 6a-d, 11)
(B) Revision and Remand - Where an allotment order is set aside for apparent illegalities, a time-bar on objections to provisional allotment is inapplicable once the matter is remanded for reconsideration (Para 9)
(C) Duty of Authorities - Allotments must be based on valid reasons and proper consideration of the physical location and valuation of the land; mechanical orders that ignore spot inspection reports proving the prime nature of the land are liable to be set aside (Para 11)
Facts of the case:
Consolidation proceedings were initiated for a plot of land that abuts a main road. The plot was allotted to persons who admitted having no original rights to the land, while the original tenure holders were displaced and allotted land elsewhere. The original holders challenged this, leading to conflicting orders from the Assistant Director of Consolidation, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, and the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The High Court eventually set aside the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, ruling that prime roadside land should not be allotted to strangers.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the subject matter abuts the highway and the original tenure holders were entitled to retain such prime land. The allotment to persons who had no preferential rights was not supported by any valid reason, and the findings of the lower revisional authority were mechanical and erroneous.
Issues: Whether land abutting a main road with high commercial value can be legally allotted to strangers during consolidation proceedings when it results in the displacement of the original tenure holders.
Ratio Decidendi: Prime roadside land with high commercial value must be retained by the original tenure holders; allotting such land to strangers lacking any prior tenure rights is contrary to the purpose of consolidation and constitutes a manifest illegality.
Result: The Civil Appeal fails and is dismissed.
(B) Revision and Remand - Where an allotment order is set aside for apparent illegalities, a time-bar on objections to provisional allotment is inapplicable once the matter is remanded for reconsideration (Para 9)
(C) Duty of Authorities - Allotments must be based on valid reasons and proper consideration of the physical location and valuation of the land; mechanical orders that ignore spot inspection reports proving the prime nature of the land are liable to be set aside (Para 11)
Facts of the case:
Consolidation proceedings were initiated for a plot of land that abuts a main road. The plot was allotted to persons who admitted having no original rights to the land, while the original tenure holders were displaced and allotted land elsewhere. The original holders challenged this, leading to conflicting orders from the Assistant Director of Consolidation, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, and the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The High Court eventually set aside the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, ruling that prime roadside land should not be allotted to strangers.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the subject matter abuts the highway and the original tenure holders were entitled to retain such prime land. The allotment to persons who had no preferential rights was not supported by any valid reason, and the findings of the lower revisional authority were mechanical and erroneous.
Issues: Whether land abutting a main road with high commercial value can be legally allotted to strangers during consolidation proceedings when it results in the displacement of the original tenure holders.
Ratio Decidendi: Prime roadside land with high commercial value must be retained by the original tenure holders; allotting such land to strangers lacking any prior tenure rights is contrary to the purpose of consolidation and constitutes a manifest illegality.
Result: The Civil Appeal fails and is dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Rajkumari Banju- 2224, AOR Mr. Punit Vinay- 2865, AOR Mr. Aditya Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Adv. Ms. Anjale Kumari, Adv. Mr. Taiyyab Khan Salmani, Adv. Mr. P Murugesan, Adv. Mr. Aditya Yadav, Adv. Ms. Chhaya, Adv. Ms. Khushboo, Adv. Ms. Purva Kumari, Adv. Ms. Prakriti Pandey, Adv. Mr. Tota Ram, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Malhotra- 728, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Rajkumari Banju- 2224, AOR Mr. Punit Vinay- 2865, AOR Mr. Aditya Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Adv. Ms. Anjale Kumari, Adv. Mr. Taiyyab Khan Salmani, Adv. Mr. P Murugesan, Adv. Mr. Aditya Yadav, Adv. Ms. Chhaya, Adv. Ms. Khushboo, Adv. Ms. Purva Kumari, Adv. Ms. Prakriti Pandey, Adv. Mr. Tota Ram, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Malhotra- 728, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Appellants argued that consolidation challenges were raised belatedly and sought to retain allotted lands, while Respondents contended the consolidation violated circulars requiring exclusion of prime roadside plots. (Para 8 , 9 )
3. The court observed that allotment of prime roadside land to persons without original holdings, contrary to relevant circulars and proper valuation, invalidated the consolidation scheme. (Para 4 , 6 , 11 )
4. Consolidation authorities cannot arbitrarily allot prime roadside land to strangers against the possession and rights of original tenure holders in violation of established government guidelines. (Para 6 , 11 )
5. The court affirmed the High Court’s order, dismissing the appeal and directing the restoration of the subject land to the original tenure holders. (Para 12 , 13 )
6. Does the exclusion of prime roadside land from consolidation schemes constitute a mandatory procedure?
Yes, administrative circulars mandate that roadside land of commercial value should primarily be excluded from consolidation operations, and if retained, it must be allotted to the original tenure holders to prevent arbitrary displacement. (Para 4 , 6 , 11 )
7. Can high courts interfere with consolidation orders based on spot inspection reports?
Yes, high courts may exercise jurisdiction to interfere with consolidation orders when authorities provide mechanical reasoning or ignore crucial findings from legitimate spot inspection reports that highlight illegalities or arbitrary allotment practices. (Para 6 , 11 )
JUDGMENT :
S.V.N. Bhatti, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The Respondents filed Civil Writ Petition No. 1895 of 1993 in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, challenging the Order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti Camp, Parasrampur (“DDC”). In the impugned Judgment, the High Court reversed the DDC’s Order dated 31.12.1992.
3. The subject matter of the Appeal is Plot No. 159 of village Barahpur Pandey, Pargana Amorha, Tehsil Harraiya, District Basti, Uttar Pradesh. On 12.10.1973, consolidation operations commenced in the subject village under Section 4(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (“the Act”). The subject matter was included in the Statement of Principles prepared on 12.10.1974. On 31.10.1974, Notices were issued inviting objections under Section 9 of the Act. The parties state that they received no objections. On 03.04.1978, the provisional Consolidation Scheme was published, and the Assistant Consolidation Officer (“ACO”), by proposing the carving out of chaks, allotted portions of the subject matter to the Appellants herein. The Appellants also admitted that they had no right in the subject matter. On 28.04.1982, the authorities delivered possession of the chaks to the allottees. Respondents claimed to be the original tenure holders and complained of displacement from the roadside plot and allotment of udan chaks.
4. On 13.01.1986, the Assistant Director of Consolidation, Basti (“ADC”) allowed the Respondents' revision along with connected Revisions, set aside the allotment scheme, and remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer to carve out chaks afresh. The ADC found that the roadside land in the subject matter had been irregularly allotted to persons, thereby denying the original plot holders. The gist of the ADC’s Order is set out below:
- a) On perusal of the records and spot inspection, it is found that the main village roads lead towards Ayodhya, where the market is situated, thereby giving roadside land high commercial value.
b) That persons with no original holding near the road were arbitrarily allotted chaks on the road, whereas others were allotted roadside areas far exceeding their original holdings.
c) That C.H. Form 2A and C.H. Form 23 Part (1) contained incorrect postings, discrepancies in valuation and area, and entries that did not match the Sector Register.
d) The ACO committed serious illegalities and arbitrary allotments in violation of repeated Directorate instructions.
e) That C.H. Form 23 Part (1) lacked the signatures of the ACO and the Consolidation Officer, necessitating an administrative explanation. Such widespread illegalities, arbitrary roadside allotments, and large-scale leave-outs (bachat) could not be addressed at the revisional stage.
f) Allowed the revisions, set aside the orders of the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, and remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer to reconsider the chak objections, re-examine the double and bachat entries, and carve out the village chaks afresh within one month, in accordance with the Directorate’s instructions.
5. On remand, the Consolidation Officer, by Order dated 06.06.1992, again confirmed the allotment of the subject matter in favour of the Appellants. The Respondents, aggrieved by the Order dated 06.06.1992, filed Appeal No. 695 of 1992 before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Basti (“SOC”).
6. The SOC conducted a spot inspection and recorded that the subject matter abuts the main road and that the original right holders were not properly allotted. Based on this observation, vide its Order dated 18.09.1992, the SOC concluded that, contrary to the extant procedure and the circulars issued by the Government, the subject matter had been included in the Consolidation under the Act. Aggrieved by the above Order, the parties preferred Revision before the DDC. On 31.12.1992, the DDC reversed the SOC order dated 18.09.1992 via a common Order. Respondents filed the instant Writ
