advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Sunday, February 18, 2018

It is well settled position of law that if an order adversely affects any party, he has a right to challenge it. The appellant was not a party to the appeal filed by Bansi Ballabh, but by the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation in the appeal filed by Bansi Ballabh, the appellant was virtually denied access to the road. Therefore, the Deputy Director, Consolidation was justified in entertaining the revision filed by the appellant herein and making re-allotments, as indicated hereinabove. - The respondent, Deoki Devi is directed to remove the entire construction at her own cost and hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the land to the appellant within 30 days from today failing which the appellant can take assistance of the Court to take possession of the land and building in which event, Deoki Devi will not be entitled to the cost of the structure or any other damages.

1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).394 OF 2009
Mahant Lalita Sharanji ...Appellant(s)
Versus
Deoki Devi & Anr. …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Deepak Gupta J.
1. The appellant is the Mahant of Shri Mukunddevacharya
Peeth, Topi Kunj, Temple of Thakur Radhemohanji Maharaj at
Vrindavan. The temple was owner of plot bearing No. 212/2
measuring 2.48 acres. The contesting respondent no. 1 Deoki
Devi was owner of land bearing No. 319 measuring 0.44 acres.
One Bansi Ballabh [not a party to these proceedings], was the
owner of Plot No. 215 and Plot No. 216.
2
2. Consolidation proceedings took place and during the course
of these proceedings, the appellant was allotted a portion of Plot
No. 212/2, a portion of Plot No. 215 and a portion of Plot No.
216. A portion of Plot No. 212/2, adjoining the road, was treated
as bachat land for use by the Gaon Sabha. It is pertinent to
mention that one Premwati (not a party to these proceedings),
was also allotted a very small portion of Plot No. 212/2. The land
reserved as bachat land for use by the Gaon Sabha and the land
allotted to Premwati adjoined the Vrindavan Chatikara main
road. Deoki Devi was also allotted a portion of Plot No. 215
measuring 0.18 acres. The appellant did not challenge the
allotment of land to the Gaon Sabha [bachat land] or the
allotment of land to Premwati.
3. Bansi Ballabh, owner of Plot No. 215 and Plot No. 216, filed
an appeal challenging the allotment of 0.18 acres of land in Plot
No. 215 in favour of Deoki Devi. It would be pertinent to mention
that the present appellant was not a party to those proceedings.
The Settlement Officer, Consolidation allowed the appeal filed by
Bansi Ballabh on 27.08.1981. However, the Settlement Officer,
Consolidation did not limit the appeal to the claim against Deoki 
3
Devi only. He ordered amendment of the holding table and now
Deoki Devi, who had been allotted land in Plot No. 215, was
allotted 0.17 acres of land in Plot No. 212/2, adjoining the
Vrindavan Chatikara main road. The holding of the appellant
[though he was not a party to the proceedings] was also changed
and 0.39 acres of land allotted to him in Plot No. 215 and 0.36
acres of land in Plot No. 216, were taken away and he was again
granted 0.66 acres of land in Plot No. 212/2 in addition to what
was already allotted to him. As far as the bachat land was
concerned, that was changed from Plot No. 212/2 to the northeast
corner of Plot No. 216 measuring 0.62 acre. The appellant
claims that he was unaware of this order since he was not a
party to the appeal filed by Bansi Ballabh.
4. The appellant filed a restoration application before the
Settlement Officer, Consolidation and, at the same time, filed a
revision petition before the Deputy Director, Consolidation
against the order dated 27.08.1981. The restoration application
was dismissed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation mainly on
the ground that since the appellant had not challenged the
reduction of his holding in Plot No. 212/2 in the first round of
4
consolidation proceedings wherein the front portion of his plot
had been reserved as bachat land for use by the Gaon Sabha, he
was not entitled to challenge the same in the second round.
However, the Deputy Director, Consolidation allowed the revision
filed by the appellant on 13.12.1983. Before the Deputy Director,
Consolidation, Bansi Ballabh, Hari Vallabh, Deoki Devi and the
Gaon Sabha were all parties. Premwati was also made a party to
the proceedings subsequently. Notices were sent but the
respondent Deoki Devi and Premwati were proceeded ex parte
and the revision was allowed. By the amended table of holding,
the appellant was allotted Plot No. 212/2, which was his original
holding and both Premwati and Deoki Devi were allotted land in
Plot No. 216.
5. Thereafter, Premwati and Deoki Devi both filed restoration
application before the Deputy Director, Consolidation, who
rejected the same on the ground that both of them had been duly
served. The Deputy Director, Consolidation also noted that Deoki
Devi was not ready to take back her original plot i.e. Plot No. 319
and he upheld the allotment of land to her in Plot No. 216.
Aggrieved, Deoki Devi filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High
5
Court, which was allowed by the impugned judgment mainly on
the ground that since the appellant herein had accepted the
allotment of front portion of Plot No. 212/2 to the Gaon Sabha
and Premwati, he having lost title to the property could not object
to the grant of the same to Deoki Devi especially since he has not
filed an appeal against the original order.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The main
contention urged on behalf of the appellant is that since the main
portion of Plot No. 212/2 was reserved as bachat land, to be
allotted to the Gaon Sabha, which the appellant could have also
utilised, he had not objected to the same. It is submitted that in
the appeal filed by Bansi Ballabh, the original order of allotment
was virtually set aside and even the lands allotted to the
appellant in Plot No. 215 and Plot No. 216 were taken back from
him and thereafter, the Respondent No. 1, Deoki Devi was
allotted the front portion of Plot No. 212/2 adjoining the road and
this gave the appellant a fresh cause of action. It is also urged
that in the writ petition filed by Deoki Devi she had made an
averment on affidavit that she wants her original holding
[obviously Plot No. 319] provided she is given compensation of
6
Rs.20,000/-. Therefore, the writ court could not have granted
relief to her beyond what she had prayed.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No.1,
Deoki Devi, after referring to Section 9(2) and 11-A of the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short ‘the Consolidation
Act’), submits that once the appellant had accepted the original
order, he was no longer the owner of the land and he could not
challenge the subsequent order.
8. Section 9(2) of the Consolidation Act provides that any
person to whom notice has been sent under Section 9(1), has to
file objections before the Assistant Consolidation Officer within a
period of 21 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Section
11-A of the Consolidation Act provides that no question in
respect of claims to land etc. relating to a consolidation area
which might or ought to have been raised under Section 9(2) and
were not raised at that stage, can be permitted to be raised or
heard at subsequent stage of consolidation proceedings. The
purpose of these two provisions is to ensure that when a draft
scheme is prepared or notice of allotment of land is issued, then 
7
if a person has any objection to the same, he must file his
objection at that stage and if he does not file the same, he cannot
be permitted to raise these objections at a later stage. This is a
well settled position of law.
9. Each case has to be decided on its own facts. In the present
case, the appellant had not objected to grant of a very small
portion of land to Premwati and allotment of the front portion of
the land as bachat land to be used by the Gaon Sabha. In this
case, Bansi Ballabh, owner of Plot No. 215 and Plot No.216, filed
appeal. Though this appeal was limited to challenging the
allotment made to Deoki Devi, the Settlement Officer,
Consolidation, while allowing the appeal, virtually nullified the
original consolidation order and took away the land allotted to
the appellant in Plot No. 215 and Plot No. 216 and re-allotted him
his land in Plot No. 212/2, allotted land to the Gaon Sabha in
Plot No. 216 and allotted the front portion of the land in Plot No.
212/2 to Premwati and Deoki Devi. We have perused the map
[Annexure P-6] and from this it is clear that the appellant would
have had access to the road when the land was allotted to the
Gaon Sabha as bachat land. The appellant could have also used 
8
the land and his access to the road would not have been affected,
had that portion of the land been not allotted to Deoki Devi. This
order virtually nullified the earlier order and, therefore, the
appellant was well within his rights to challenge the order passed
by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation in the appeal filed by
Bansi Ballabh. It is well settled position of law that if an order
adversely affects any party, he has a right to challenge it. The
appellant was not a party to the appeal filed by Bansi Ballabh,
but by the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation
in the appeal filed by Bansi Ballabh, the appellant was virtually
denied access to the road. Therefore, the Deputy Director,
Consolidation was justified in entertaining the revision filed by
the appellant herein and making re-allotments, as indicated
hereinabove.
10. It has been contended by the appellant that the original
holding of Deoki Devi in Plot No. 319 was almost 2 kilometres
away. It may be true that she has been allotted a smaller portion
of land but the purpose of the Consolidation Act is to prevent
fragmentation of a holding and to have one common holding.
The Deputy Director, Consolidation rightly allowed the revision.
9
11. We are of the considered view that the High Court erred in
holding that the appellant had no right to challenge the order of
the Settlement Officer, Consolidation in the appeal filed by Bansi
Ballabh because he had not challenged the original order in
original proceedings whereby the front portion of the land was
treated as bachat land. As we have pointed out above, the
second order virtually nullified the earlier order and this gave a
fresh cause of action to the appellant and he could challenge the
same. As far as Premwati is concerned, she did not challenge the
order passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation. We also find
that the writ court did not take into consideration the averments
made in Para 23 of the writ petition wherein Deoki Devi had
prayed that she should be re-allotted Plot No. 319 and granted
Rs.20,000/- as compensation for the construction she had raised
in Plot No. 212/2.
12. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the order of the
High Court and restore the order passed by the Deputy Director,
Consolidation.
13. The respondent, Deoki Devi is directed to remove the entire
construction at her own cost and hand over vacant and peaceful 
10
possession of the land to the appellant within 30 days from today
failing which the appellant can take assistance of the Court to
take possession of the land and building in which event, Deoki
Devi will not be entitled to the cost of the structure or any other
damages.
14. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
………………………..J.
(Madan B. Lokur)
…………………………J.
(Deepak Gupta)
New Delhi
February 16, 2018

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.