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 north-

east 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