Supreme Court Upholds Land Rights of Mahant: Mahant Lalita Sharanji vs. Deoki Devi (2018)

Date of the Judgment: 16 February 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 121

Judges: Madan B. Lokur J., Deepak Gupta J.

Can a party challenge a land consolidation order if a subsequent order significantly alters the original allotment, even if they didn’t object to the initial plan? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving a Mahant and a land dispute in Vrindavan. This judgment clarifies the rights of landowners in consolidation proceedings when subsequent orders alter the original land allotments. The bench comprised of Justice Madan B. Lokur and Justice Deepak Gupta, with the judgment authored by Justice Deepak Gupta.

Case Background

The case revolves around a land dispute in Vrindavan involving Mahant Lalita Sharanji (the appellant), Deoki Devi (respondent no. 1), and other landowners. The appellant is the Mahant of Shri Mukunddevacharya Peeth, which owns plot no. 212/2. Deoki Devi owned land in plot no. 319. During consolidation proceedings, the appellant was allotted portions of plots 212/2, 215, and 216. A portion of plot 212/2 was designated as ‘bachat land’ for the Gaon Sabha (village council), and a small portion was allotted to Premwati. Deoki Devi received a portion of plot 215. The appellant did not challenge the allotments to the Gaon Sabha or Premwati at this stage.

Bansi Ballabh, another landowner, challenged Deoki Devi’s allotment. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation, not only addressed Bansi Ballabh’s claim but also altered the appellant’s holdings, re-allotting land and changing the bachat land location. The appellant, who was not a party to Bansi Ballabh’s appeal, claimed to be unaware of this order. The appellant then filed a restoration application and a revision petition against the order of the Settlement Officer.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Settlement Officer, Consolidation, in an appeal filed by Bansi Ballabh, altered the original consolidation order, re-allotting land to the appellant, Deoki Devi, and changing the location of the ‘bachat land’. The appellant’s restoration application was dismissed. However, the Deputy Director, Consolidation, allowed the appellant’s revision petition, re-allotting land. Deoki Devi and Premwati’s restoration applications were rejected. Deoki Devi then filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court, which was allowed, primarily because the appellant had not challenged the initial allotment of ‘bachat land’.

Legal Framework

The judgment refers to the following provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953:

• Section 9(2): This section mandates that any person who receives a notice under Section 9(1) must file objections before the Assistant Consolidation Officer within 21 days of receiving the notice. The purpose is to ensure timely objections to the draft scheme or allotment of land.
• Section 11-A: This section states that any claims related to land in a consolidation area that could have been raised under Section 9(2) but were not, cannot be raised at a later stage in the consolidation proceedings. This provision aims to prevent delays and ensure the finality of consolidation orders.

These provisions ensure that objections to land allotments are raised promptly during consolidation proceedings. The court considered whether the appellant’s failure to object to the initial allotment of ‘bachat land’ barred him from challenging subsequent changes.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that he did not object to the initial reservation of a portion of Plot No. 212/2 as ‘bachat land’ because he could still access the road and utilize the land.
• The appellant contended that the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, in the appeal filed by Bansi Ballabh, virtually nullified the original consolidation order and re-allotted the land. This gave the appellant a fresh cause of action to challenge the new allotment, especially the allotment of the front portion of Plot No. 212/2 to Deoki Devi.
• The appellant also pointed out that Deoki Devi had stated in her writ petition that she wanted her original holding (Plot No. 319) back if she was compensated with Rs. 20,000. Therefore, the writ court should not have granted relief beyond what she had prayed for.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• Deoki Devi argued that the appellant had accepted the original order and was no longer the owner of the land. Therefore, he could not challenge the subsequent order.
• Deoki Devi relied on Section 9(2) and 11-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, to argue that the appellant should have raised his objections in the first round of consolidation proceedings.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue addressed by the court was:

1. Whether the appellant, having not objected to the initial allotment of a portion of his land as ‘bachat land’, was barred from challenging a subsequent order that significantly altered his land holdings and allotted a portion of his land to Deoki Devi.

The sub-issue was whether the High Court was right in holding that the appellant had no right to challenge the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Court did not explicitly cite any cases or books in its judgment. However, it did refer to the following legal provisions:

• Section 9(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953: This section requires objections to be filed within 21 days of receiving notice.
• Section 11-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953: This section bars raising objections at a later stage if they could have been raised earlier.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court considered Section 9(2) and Section 11-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, but distinguished their application in this case. The Court held that these provisions would not bar the appellant from challenging the subsequent order because the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, in the appeal filed by Bansi Ballabh, had virtually nullified the original consolidation order and this gave rise to a fresh cause of action to the appellant.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, in the appeal filed by Bansi Ballabh, significantly altered the original land allotments. This order not only affected Deoki Devi’s land but also the appellant’s land, effectively nullifying the original consolidation order. The Court emphasized that this alteration gave the appellant a fresh cause of action to challenge the order, especially since it affected his access to the road, which was not the case in the original allotment. The Court also took into account that Deoki Devi had stated in her writ petition that she wanted her original holding (Plot No. 319) back if she was compensated with Rs. 20,000. Therefore, the writ court should not have granted relief beyond what she had prayed for.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The court reasoned that the appellant’s failure to object to the initial ‘bachat land’ allotment did not bar him from challenging the subsequent order that significantly altered his land holdings and his access to the road. The Court noted that the second order effectively nullified the first order and gave the appellant a fresh cause of action.

The Court also rejected the High Court’s view that the appellant should have challenged the original order. The Court stated that the second order was a new development and therefore the appellant was justified in challenging the same.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the following key reasons:

• The order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, in the appeal filed by Bansi Ballabh, virtually nullified the original consolidation order.
• The second order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, affected the appellant’s access to the road, which was not the case in the original allotment.
• Deoki Devi’s prayer in her writ petition was to get her original holding back.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

• “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 Ba nsi B allabh, the appellant was virtually denied access to the road.”
• “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.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• A party can challenge a subsequent consolidation order if it significantly alters the original land allotments, even if they did not object to the initial order.
• A fresh cause of action arises when a subsequent order effectively nullifies the original order and affects a party’s rights.
• Courts will consider the impact of subsequent orders on a party’s rights, even if they did not object to the initial order.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed Deoki Devi to remove all construction on the disputed land at her own cost and hand over vacant possession to the appellant within 30 days. If she fails to do so, the appellant can take assistance of the Court to take possession, and Deoki Devi will not be entitled to any compensation for the structure or damages.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a party is not barred from challenging a subsequent order that significantly alters the original land allotments, even if they did not object to the initial order. This case clarifies that a fresh cause of action arises when a subsequent order effectively nullifies the original order and affects a party’s rights. This is a change from the previous position of law where the courts were reluctant to allow challenges to subsequent orders if the party had not objected to the initial order.

Conclusion

In the case of Mahant Lalita Sharanji vs. Deoki Devi, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that he was justified in challenging the subsequent consolidation order that significantly altered his land holdings. The Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the order passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation, thereby upholding the Mahant’s land rights. This judgment clarifies that a fresh cause of action arises when a subsequent order effectively nullifies the original order and affects a party’s rights.