After nearly five decades of relentless litigation, the Allahabad High Court has finally brought closure to a long-drawn land dispute from Etawah. The case Adesh Singh Bhadoria and Another vs District DDC/Collector Etawah and Others was decided by Justice Dinesh Pathak on October 17, 2025, ending a series of proceedings that began way back in the late 1970s under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
“The petitioners, who have no valid right, title or possession over the land, have dragged the respondents into litigation purely out of greed,” the court remarked while dismissing the plea.
Background
The dispute centred on a small patch of land in village Kamet, Etawah, which had been under consolidation since 1976. The petitioners, successors of one Baba Chhote Das, claimed possession over plots numbered 2337 and 2338, arguing that a Hanuman temple existed on the land and that they could not be removed without fresh proceedings.
Their claim was opposed by Santosh Kumar, son of late Jiya Lal, who maintained that his father had lawfully purchased and been allotted the land decades ago through consolidation orders. The case went through multiple rounds of appeals, revisions, and even a compromise between other parties back in 1989.
Despite numerous opportunities to present proof, the petitioners allegedly failed to produce a single document establishing ownership. “Neither land records nor consolidation files showed their name anywhere,” the court noted.
Court’s Observations
Justice Pathak went through a detailed history of the matter, tracing orders from 1979 to 2017. He observed that Baba Chhote Das had been given multiple chances to prove his case but “did not produce any evidence to establish legal ownership or possession.”
The bench pointed out that the consolidation authorities had already examined the matter in detail, with reports confirming that plot 2338 belonged to Jiya Lal’s family and that the Hanuman temple was actually situated on the adjoining plot 2337, which is Gaon Sabha land (village community property).
Importantly, the judge clarified that the earlier 1989 High Court order protecting the petitioner from eviction was later modified in 1991 to allow authorities to proceed after giving a fair hearing. “Ample opportunity was accorded to the petitioners; yet they could not substantiate any right or title,” Justice Pathak wrote.
Calling the prolonged litigation “deplorable,” the court observed that such cases “clog the judicial system and deprive rightful owners of possession for decades.”
Decision
Dismissing the writ petition as “misconceived and devoid of merit,” the High Court refused to interfere with the earlier consolidation and revisional orders.
It directed the local authorities to correct the land revenue records and hand over possession of plot no. 2338 (0.086 hectare) to Santosh Kumar, the rightful owner, within two months of receiving a certified copy of the judgment.
Justice Pathak also instructed the Assistant Collector (SDO) to ensure that all obstacles are removed and the land is demarcated according to law.
With this, a dispute that started with a minor objection in 1978 finally comes to rest closing one of Etawah’s oldest consolidation-era battles.
Case: Adesh Singh Bhadoria & Another vs District Deputy Director of Consolidation / Collector, Etawah & Others
Case Type & No.: Writ – B No. 55684 of 2017
Date of Judgment: October 17, 2025
