Summary
The Supreme Court held that acceptance of an original consolidation allotment did not bar challenge to a later order that substantially changed the scheme and adversely affected the appellant’s road access. That later order created a fresh cause of action, even though the appellant had not been a party to the appeal in which it was made. The Deputy Director’s re-allotment order was restored, with directions to remove construction and deliver possession.
Issues
- Whether failure to challenge the original consolidation scheme barred objection to a later materially adverse re-allotment.
- Whether the appellant could challenge an order made in proceedings to which he was not a party.
- What possession directions should follow restoration of the revisional order.
Held
- Sections 9(2) and 11-A require timely objections to matters that could and should have been raised at the initial stage. That settled rule did not preclude challenge to the new consequences of a later order that effectively nullified the original arrangement. (¶¶ 8, 9, 11)
- The original roadside reservation for Gaon Sabha use left the appellant access to the road. The later appellate order changed his other allotments and placed the roadside portion in private hands, effectively denying that access. It created a fresh cause of action; a person adversely affected could challenge it even though not a party to that appeal. (¶¶ 2, 3, 9, 11)
- The Deputy Director was justified in entertaining the revision and making the re-allotments. The High Court wrongly treated acceptance of the earlier scheme as determinative and also failed to consider Deoki Devi’s own pleaded request for return of her original holding with compensation. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12)
- Deoki Devi was to remove the construction at her expense and deliver vacant peaceful possession within thirty days. On failure, the appellant could obtain court assistance to take possession of the land and building, with no entitlement for Deoki Devi to structure cost or other damages. (¶ 13)
Result
Appeal allowed. High Court order set aside and Deputy Director’s order restored; Deoki Devi directed to remove construction and deliver possession within thirty days, with the stated consequences on default.