Allahabad High Court

SURENDRA PAL SINGHversusJAI DEVI

Decided: 17 March 2026
Disposal: Dismiss
Bench: SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY

Holding

The consolidation order is justified and not subject to interference, leading to dismissal of the writ petition.

Summary

The petition was filed by Surendra Pal Singh challenging a consolidation order issued by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which was based on a revision filed by Jai Devi. The order readjusted the allocation of land parcels (chak) between the parties, rejecting the petitioner's claim to a specific chak and granting it to the respondent. The petitioner contended that he was not given an opportunity to be heard before the order was passed. The court examined the revisionist's original allocation (chak 6-21) and the petitioner's allotted chak (4-85) and found the readjustment appropriate. Concluding that the order was justified and that more than 45 years had elapsed, the court dismissed the writ petition without interference.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner was denied a hearing in violation of principles of natural justice
Whether the consolidation order based on the revision can be set aside after a lapse of 45 years
Whether the readjustment of chak allocations was legally valid

Subjects

land consolidation
chak allocation
revision
natural justice
writ petition
High Court
procedural fairness

Judgment

           HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                         WRIT - B No. - 14663 of 1981

Surendra Pal Singh
                                                               .....Petitioner(s)
                                    Versus

Jai Devi
                                                             .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)        : D.P.Singh, Prabhat Kumar, Siddharth
                                   Niranjan
Counsel for Respondent(s)        : P.K.Bisaria, R.K.Srivastava, Udai
                                   Karan Saxena

Court No. - 32
                HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1.Heard Sri Mangal Rai holding brief of Sri Siddharth Niranjan, learned
counsel for the petitioner.

2. This is a case arising out of chak during consolidation proceedings.

3. This writ petition was filed in the year 1981 and no interim order was
passed.

4. Court finds that impugned order was passed by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation on basis of revision which has been filed by revisionist Jai
Devi (respondent no.1 herein). Relevant part of impugned order is
mentioned hereinafter:

     "मैने उभय पक्ष को सुना तथा ग्राम के अभिलेखों का अवलोकन किया। जिससे
     यह विदित हुआ कि निगरानीकर्ता की मांग सही है उसका दूसरा चक जो गाटा
     संख्या 631 आदि पर बना है बिना मूल जोत के है और वहां उसकी चक दिया
     जाना न्याय संगत नहीं है। निगरानी कर्ता की मूल जोत 6-21 है जब कि उसे चक
     4-85 का दिया गया है इस प्रकार रकवे का यह अन्तर अनियमित है। वह एक
     छोटा कास्तकार है। दुरूस्त करना आवश्यक है। निगरानी कर्ता ने चकदार 392
     को पक्ष बनाया है जिसको एक चक दिया गया है इसकी मूल जोत 2-08 रू० थी
     जब कि चक 5-02 ए 0 का दिया गया है। रकवे में इतना अधिक अन्तर नियमित
     नहीं है।
        अतः निगरानीकर्ता की निगरानी स्वीकार की जाती है चकदार 97 से उसका
     चक जो गाटा सं० 631, 633 पर बना है, 9-16 आने की मालियत खारिज
                                                                                               WRIB No. 14663 of 1981
                                                                      2


                                            करके चकदार 392 को दी जाती है तथा चकदार 392 से उसके एक से इतनी
                                            मालियत उसके चक जो गाटा संख्या 705,6,8 आदि पर बना है खारिज करके
                                            चकदार 97 को प्रदिष्ट की जाती है तदनुसार संशोधन तालिका बनाई गई है जो
                                            इस आदेश का अंग होगी।"

                                    5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was not heard.

                                    6. I have considered the above submissions and find that impugned order
                                    is justified since the revisionist (respondent no.1) has original chak at 6-
                                    21 and petitioner was allotted chak at 4-85 as Udaan Chak, therefore, said
                                    order was cured and chak was readjusted, therefore, impugned order does
                                    not invite any interference after more than 45 years.

                                        7. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.



                                                                                  (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
                                    March 18, 2026
                                    SB




Digitally signed by :-
SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…