The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal challenging the restoration of roadside land to its original tenure holders in a consolidation dispute involving agricultural property in Basti district of Uttar Pradesh. The Court held that there was no valid justification for allotting the land to persons who had no existing tenure rights over it.
A Bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria upheld the Allahabad High Court's judgment, which had set aside the Deputy Director of Consolidation's order and directed restoration of the disputed land to its original tenure holders.
Background
The dispute concerned Plot No. 159 in village Barahpur Pandey, Tehsil Harraiya, District Basti. Consolidation proceedings in the village began in 1973, and the disputed land was subsequently included in the consolidation scheme.
During the allotment process, portions of the land were allotted to the appellants, Rama Pandey and others, who admittedly had no existing rights over the disputed property. The original tenure holders, represented by Ram Lal (since deceased) through his legal representatives and others, objected to the allotment, claiming that they had been displaced from their original roadside land.
In 1986, the Assistant Director of Consolidation set aside the earlier allotment and directed fresh proceedings after identifying irregularities in the allocation of roadside plots. However, the Consolidation Officer again confirmed the allotment in favour of the appellants in 1992.
The dispute eventually reached the Allahabad High Court, which overturned the Deputy Director of Consolidation's decision dated December 31, 1992, and directed restoration of the land to the original tenure holders.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that objections to the provisional allotment had been raised after considerable delay and that the High Court had incorrectly interfered with the consolidation authorities' decision.
The respondents maintained that the roadside property had been included in the consolidation proceedings contrary to government circulars and that persons without preferential rights had been allotted land belonging to the original tenure holders.
After examining the records and submissions, the Supreme Court noted that the disputed property abutted the main road and that its valuation and physical location had not been properly considered during the consolidation proceedings.
The Bench observed:
"The Appellants, admittedly, did not hold any right vis-à-vis the subject matter. On the contrary, the Respondents are the original tenure holders."
The Court further found that the allotment in favour of the appellants was unsupported by any valid reason. It also preferred the findings of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, who had conducted a spot inspection and recorded the property's location alongside the main road.
The Court observed that the High Court had correctly identified the errors in the Deputy Director of Consolidation's approach and had acted within its jurisdiction while interfering with the allotment.
Finding no reason to interfere with the Allahabad High Court's judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal.
The Court concluded:
"For the reasons stated above, we see no ground to interfere with the impugned Judgment. The Civil Appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs."
Case Details
Case Title: Rama Pandey and Others v. Ram Lal (Dead) Through LR and Others
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. of 2026 [@ S.L.P. (C) No. 15053 of 2017]
Judges: Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N. V. Anjaria
Decision Date: November 5, 2026
