Summary
In consolidation proceedings involving an undivided agricultural holding, the appellate and revisional authorities allotted each co-sharer a chak with road frontage while preserving the house site and pumping-set area. The Supreme Court held that the High Court wrongly disturbed this equitable arrangement merely because the parties had occupied separate portions. It restored the consolidation authorities’ orders.
Issues
- Whether possession of separate portions by mutual arrangement excluded a co-sharer from road-frontage allotment without lawful partition.
- Whether the High Court was justified in disturbing the allotment made after spot inspection.
Provisions considered
- Section 176, U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950In the absence of division under the statutory procedure, every co-sharer retained rights in the holding despite mutual arrangements concerning possession. (¶¶ 11, 12)
Held
- No lawful partition was shown. Separate possession by mutual arrangement did not extinguish the appellant’s co-sharer right in the plot or justify excluding him from the benefit of the road. (¶¶ 11, 12)
- The modified allotment gave all co-sharers road frontage, retained Ram Milan’s house site and included the appellant’s pumping set. The High Court overlooked these accommodations and the authorities’ spot inspections. (¶¶ 9, 10, 12)
- There was no justification for interference with the equitable appellate and revisional arrangement. Both the writ judgment and review dismissal were set aside. (¶¶ 12, 13)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court judgment and review order set aside; respondents’ writ petition dismissed. No costs.