Dismissed¶¶32

Ram Baran v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Sultanpur and 7 Others

Allahabad HC27 Oct 2025WRIB/307/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

chak marg; proposed village road; consolidation proceedings; Dy. Director of Consolidation; Settlement Officer Consolidation; Consolidation Officer; Assistant Consolidation Officer; public utility land; access to pond; gram pradhan revision; more than 50 villagers; Village Thoura; Pargana/Tahsil Amethi; District Sultanpur; Gata No. 530; Gata No. 1512; kharnja marg; order without reason is arbitrary; writ petition dismissed; WRIT - B No. 307 of 2002; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Lucknow.

What did the court decide?

The Court finds no infirmity in the findings of the Dy. Director of Consolidation that the chak marg is utilized by all the villagers for approaching the pond, recorded in proceedings in which the petitioner himself participated. ¶¶26

Ram Baran Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Sultanpur and 7 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the finding recorded by the Dy. Director of Consolidation that the proposed chak marg is utilized by all the villagers for approaching the pond is free from infirmity and requires interference by this Court. +1 more

¶¶20

Court's answer

¶¶26

Ratio / Principle

The Settlement Officer Consolidation's order dated 14.09.2001 is clearly arbitrary because it recorded the 'no utility' finding without stating any reason, and its findings cannot be sustained.

¶¶25

Key takeaways

There is no material to take a different view of the Dy. Director's finding, as the petitioner made no averments in the writ petition nor produced any document indicating that the finding is false or perverse.ratio¶¶27
No finding can be recorded in favour of the petitioner on his bare oral submission that no pond exists, since that aspect is not mentioned in the writ petition or any document filed by him.ratio¶¶24
The dispute is personal to the petitioner; no land is added to or deducted from his holding, and a road/chak marg cannot be dismantled merely because it is adjacent to the petitioner's field when it continues beyond his holdings.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad HC (Lucknow Bench), WRIT-B No. 307 of 2002 (Alok Mathur, J.): writ petition of Ram Baran challenging orders of the Consolidation Officer and Dy. Director of Consolidation regarding a proposed chak marg at Gata No. 530, Village Thoura, District Sultanpur, dismissed. The Court upheld the Dy. Director of Consolidation's revisional finding that the chak marg is used by all villagers (numbering more than 50) to approach the pond; held the Settlement Officer Consolidation's appeal-order dated 14.09.2001 clearly arbitrary for recording 'no utility' without any reason; declined to record any finding on the petitioner's unsupported oral claim that no pond exists; and held that a chak marg cannot be dismantled merely because it adjoins the petitioner's field while it continues beyond his holdings, no land having been added to or deducted from his holding. Petition dismissed as bereft of merits, full opportunity of hearing having been afforded.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - B No. - 307 of 2002

Ram Baran

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Deputy Director Of Consolid Others	ation Sultanpur And 7 ..	...Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: S.C. Srivastava, Girish R.A.Maurya, R.P. Lal	Chandra Sinha,
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., R.N. Gupta, Baghel	Surendra Singh

¶7

Court No. - 5

¶8

HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

¶9

Heard Sri G. C. Sinha, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel on behalf of State-respondents.

¶10

By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 16.03.2002 and 31.08.2002 passed by Dy. Director of Consolidation as well as Consolidation Officer.

¶11

The dispute in the present case is with regard to chak marg proposed at Gata No. 530 situated at Village - Thoura, Pargana and Tahsil - Amethi, District Sultanpur.

¶12

It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner had filed his objections to the proposed chak marg before the Assistant Consolidation Officer and the matter came to be decided by the Consolidation Officer who after making spot inspection rejected objections filed by the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation who allowed the appeal by means of his order dated 14.09.2001 and recorded a finding that there is no utility for the chak marg which is on the western boundary of the land of the petitioner situated at Gata No. 1512 and accordingly against the order dated 14.09.2001 the gram pradhan as well as number of villagers filed a revision before the Dy. Director of Consolidation stating that the said chak marg was being used by more than 50 villagers and accordingly

¶13

WRIB No. 307 of 2002

¶14

¶15

it is a public utility land and therefore interference was sought in the revisional proceedings.

¶16

The Dy. Director of Consolidation by means of impugned order dated 11.01.2001 has allowed the revision after recording a finding that the said land is being used by all the villagers to approach the pond and accordingly it cannot be said that the land does not have any utility and therefore restored the chak marg.

¶17

Before this Court, the petitioner has re-agitated the existence of the chak marg proposed on the western corner of his land and submitted that the said chak marg is not being used by any of the villagers and also submitted that in any view of the matter a kharnja marg has also come up on the eastern side which is being used by the villagers and accordingly assailed the orders passed by Consolidation Officer and Dy. Director of Consolidation.

¶18

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition. He has also filed a map and in support of which it has been submitted that chak marg is utilized by the villagers and merely on the instance of one villager chak marg cannot be altered as the public rights are involved and merely on the behest of a single villager the chak marg cannot dismantled. He has further relied upon the findings recorded by Dy. Director of Consolidation that the chak marg is used by all the villagers who are more than 50 in number and the same is utilized for approaching the pond which is being utilized by the villagers.

¶19

I have heard rival contention of learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

¶20

Firstly the finding recorded by Dy. Director of Consolidation that the proposed chak marg is utilized by all the villagers for approaching the pond.

¶21

Learned counsel for petitioner has orally submitted that no pond exists either in the village map or any other map but this aspect of the matter does not find mention in the writ petition nor any document filed by the petitioner and accordingly no finding can be recorded in favour of the

¶22

WRIB No. 307 of 2002

¶23

¶24

petitioner on the basis of oral submissions with regard to existence / nonexistence of the pond.

¶25

Apart from the above, this Court finds that the Settlement Officer Consolidation had allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner merely recording the fact that the chak marg is of no utility. The Settlement Officer Consolidation while passing the order dated 14.09.2001 has failed to state any reason for recording a finding that the chak marg would not provide any utility to the villagers. Such an order without any reason is clearly arbitrary and the findings recorded by him cannot be sustained.

¶26

On the other hand this Court finds that the Dy. Director of Consolidation while considering the grievance of the gram pradhan as well as all the villagers and in the said proceedings where the petitioner had also participated had clearly recorded a finding that the chak marg is utilized by all the villagers for approaching the pond. This Court does not find any infirmity in the findings recorded by the Dy. Director of Consolidation.

¶27

Apart from above, there is no material to take a different view of the matter as no averments have been made by the petitioner in the writ petition or any document indicating that the said fact is false or perverse. This Court further finds that no land is added to the holding of the petitioner nor is deducted and merely the dispute pertains to the proposal or the creation of the chak marg.

¶28

The dispute in the present case is personal dispute of the petitioner and according to the map filed by the petitioner, in case the chak marg is dismantled then the petitioner will have contiguous eccess from the field to his house.

¶29

On the other hand this Court finds that it cannot be imaginee that the road exists with disruption in the nature of the road contiguous to the field of the petitioner. This ground has also been considered by the Dy. Director of Consolidation where he has recorded that a road cannot be dismantled only because it is adjacent to the field of the petitioner while the same would exist beyond his holdings. Accordingly for the reasons aforesaid, this Court does not find that findings recorded by Dy. Director

¶30

WRIB No. 307 of 2002

¶31

¶32

of Consolidation requires any interference. Apart from the above, this Court finds that full opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioner at all the stages of the proceedings, accordingly the writ petition is bereft of merits and is accordingly dismissed .

¶33

(Alok Mathur,J.)

¶34

October 27, 2025 Ravi/

¶35

Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Baran v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Sultanpur and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Baran v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Sultanpur and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sadbhavna vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Deptt. and 4 Others

Smt. Sunita Dwivedi and Others vs Addl. Commissioner Administration, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Others

Lakshmi Devi vs Settlement Officer Consolidation, Lucknow and Others

Ram Prasad Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Gonda and 5 Ors.

Chiranjeev Lal and 3 Ors. Vs D.D.C. Sitapur and 2 Ors.

Anand Kumar and 3 Ors. Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Bahraich and 2 Ors.