Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
Ramashray – Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others – Respondents
Writ B. No. 4204 of 2025
Decided On : 22-01-2026
Key Points: - The court emphasized that tenure holders must be allocated chaks on original plots [judgement_subject]. - Procedural fairness requires a proper hearing and substitution of deceased parties in consolidation disputes [judgement_subject]. - The petitioner challenged a revisional order that disturbed chak allocation without proper substitution of heirs or a hearing [judgement_act_referred]. - The principle that tenure holders should be allotted chaks on their original plots and that any disturbance in allotment after an extended period without proper opportunity or hearing is unjust and improper was stressed [judgement_act_referred]. - The revisional order was found to be unjust due to the failure to properly afford a hearing and the lack of legitimate replacement of deceased parties [Facts of the case]. - The court ruled that the order made by the Deputy Director was invalid as it disturbed a long-standing and just allocation of land without sufficient grounds or considerations of justice and fairness in process [Ratio Decidendi]. - The petitioner was a chak holder whose chak allocation was altered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation 16 years after the establishment of prior allotments [Facts of the case]. - The revision was challenged due to the lack of legal substitution for deceased parties and denial of due process [Facts of the case]. - The court upheld the prior settlement order [Facts of the case]. - The writ petition was allowed, the revisional order was set aside, and the prior allotment was maintained [Result]. - The Deputy Director of Consolidation disturbed the petitioner's chak by taking out plots and allotting them to respondent No. 5, after the revision remained pending for about 16 years during which several parties expired without substitution (!) . - The Settlement Officer of Consolidation had allotted chaks to the petitioner and respondent No. 5 in 2008, which remained in operation for about 16 years (!) . - The Deputy Director of Consolidation disturbed the petitioner's chak without affording a proper opportunity of hearing, which is an essential criterion for deciding a revision under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act (!) . - The court found that changing an allotment made about 16 years prior by the Deputy Director of Consolidation after such a long period was not in the interest of justice (!) (!) . - The impugned revisional order was set aside, and the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation was maintained (!) (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the case and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments of both parties regarding the contested chak. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's consideration of procedural fairness and precedent. (Para 5 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. importance of maintaining original plot allocations. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. final decision to uphold the original allotment of chak. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT :
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard Mr. Triveni Shanker, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Garima Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.S. Dubey, learned counsel for respondent no.5, Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for respondent no.4/ Gram Panchayat.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is chak holder no.227-ba of the plots situated in Village-Shahpur, Pargana-Khareed, Tehsil- Bansdeh, District-Ballia. Original holding of the petitioner are plot No.16/2 area 0.170 hectare, 169 area 0.125 hectare, 233/1 area 0.261 hectare, 233/2 area 0.010 hectare, 286 area 0.134 hectare, 289 area 0.198 hectare total 6 plots area 0.898 hectare as mentioned in paragraph No.5 of the writ petition. Consolidation Officer under Section 9-A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (herein after referred to as the U.P.C.H. Act) divided share of Ram Suresh as 1/4, Ramashray, 1/4, Shiv Shankar 1/4, Rajaram 1/4. Petitioner was proposed two chaks by Assistant Consolidation Officer. First chak was proposed to petitioner on plot No.288 M, 289 M and second chak was proposeed to petitioner on plot No.233 M, 233M, 233 M total 5 plots area 0.203 hectare. Against the proposal of the Assistant Consolidation Officer, chak objection was filed by respondent No.5- Rajaram, which was decided by Consolidation officer vide order dated 10.03.2008 disturbing the petitioner's chak. Against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 10.3.2008, petitioner filed an appeal under Section 21 (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act before Settlement Officer of Consolidation stating that he should be allotted chak at plot No.386 and 389. Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 28.5.2008 allowed the appeal filed by petitioner and allotted chak to petitioner on plot No.15M, 16M, 17 M and respondent No.5-Rajaram was allotted chak on plot No.288 M, 289, 233M. Against the appellate order dated 28.5.2008, respondent No.5-Rajaram filed chak revision claiming the allotment of chak on his original plot no.16/2 area 0.42 decimal. The aforementioned chak revision filed by respondent No.5-Rajaram, remained pending for about 16 years. During pendency of the aforementioned chak revision, Ram Suresh has expired and legal heirs of deceased Ram Suresh have also expired as well as certain other person in the revision have also expired, but no substitution application has been filed in the pending chak revision. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 15.7.2025 allowed the revision and disturbed the petitioner's chak by taking out the plot No.15M, 16M and 17 M from the chak of the petitioner and allotted the same to the respondent No.5-Rajaram. Hence this writ petition for the following relief:-
"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 15.7.2025 (Annexure No.1) passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia."
3. This Court entertained the matter on 17.10.2025 and stayed the effect and operation of the impugned revisional order dated 15.7.2025. The order dated 17.10.2025 runs as under:-
"1. Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary corrections in the prayer clause of the writ petition during the course of the day.
2. Heard Sri Triveni Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.S. Dubey, learned counsel for respondent no.5, learned standing counsel for the state-respondents and Sri Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted tha
The court emphasized that tenure holders must be allocated chaks on original plots, and procedural fairness requires proper hearing and substitution of deceased parties in consolidation disputes.
The court upheld the adjustment of chak allotment based on original tenure rights and comparative hardship, affirming the authority's jurisdiction under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
A chak holder's entitlement can only be altered where existing agricultural rights and irrigation sources are preserved, underscoring the importance of statutory compliance in land allocation.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation must consider comparative hardship when exercising revisional jurisdiction under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
The revisional authority under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act can alter allotments if it considers the comparative hardship of all tenure holders, ensuring a just exercise of jurisdiction.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation must consider comparative hardship of both parties when exercising jurisdiction under Section 48(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
The court mandated reconsideration of land allotment claims, emphasizing the necessity of a fair hearing for all affected parties under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
The allotment of roadside plots under consolidation laws must reflect the shares of each holder without illegality in the decision-making process.
The court upheld the legality of Chak allotment under the U.P.C.H. Act, affirming adherence to principles of rectangulation and consideration of irrigation sources.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
