Dismissed¶23

Santosh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC13 Feb 2026WRIB/82/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chak road realignment dispute under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (Sections 21(1) and 9); Gata No. 163; village Sahabuddinpur; Chak Nos. 497, 604, 189, 673; chak holders Somraj S/o Puttu and Dhaniram S/o Puttu; orders of Consolidation Officer (30.07.2025), Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and Deputy Director of Consolidation (09.12.2025); timing/belated objections at Section 9 stage; circuitous versus shorter route; writ dismissed by Alok Mathur, J. on 13.02.2026; no precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

A chak road already exists along the boundaries of the petitioner's holdings connecting village Sahabuddinpur; the road granted by the Consolidation Officer is a second chak road to that village, and it cannot be said that the petitioner's chak is unconnected to any chak road. ¶18

Santosh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the chak road granted to the petitioner for connecting his lands at Gata No. 163, which differed from the alignment proposed by him, should instead have followed the petitioner's proposed (shorter) course. +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The chak road has been granted to the petitioner, and even if it causes inconvenience by being longer in length for connectivity to the village, that is not a ground for interference with the impugned orders dated 09.12.2025, 30.07.2025 and 13.10.2025.

¶19

Key takeaways

This Court finds no violation of any provision of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.ratio¶19
The petitioner's proposal would cause division of the holdings of other chak holders.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Alok Mathur, J.: Writ-B No. 82 of 2026 (Santosh v. State of U.P. and others) dismissed on 13.02.2026. Dispute concerned the chak road serving the petitioner's land at Gata No. 163: the Consolidation Officer (order dated 30.07.2025) had allowed the petitioner's time-barred Section 21(1) objections and amended the chak road (affecting Chak Nos. 497, 604, 189 and 673) but not the exact alignment proposed by him; the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) rejected his appeal, finding the proposal would split the holdings of chak holder 604 (Somraj S/o Puttu) and chak holder 189 (Dhaniram S/o Puttu); the Deputy Director of Consolidation rejected his revision (order dated 09.12.2025). The Court held that a chak road already exists along the petitioner's holdings connecting village Sahabuddinpur, the granted road being a second road to that village; that inconvenience caused by its greater length is no ground for interference with the impugned orders dated 09.12.2025, 30.07.2025 and 13.10.2025; that the petitioner's proposal would divide the holdings of other chak holders; and that no provision of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 is violated.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - B No. - 82 of 2026

Santosh

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Others	Revenue,	Lko. And .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Tushar : C.S.C., Kumar	Gupta, Mohd. Kashif Rafi Arvind Kumar Kanaujea, Dilip Pandey

¶7

Court No. - 5

¶8

HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

¶9

Heard Sri Tushar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4, Sri Arvind Kumar Kanaujiya, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 6 to 7 and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no. 5.

¶10

Dispute in the present case is with regard to the chak road connecting the lands of petitioner situated at Gata No. 163. The petitioner has filed time barred objections before the Consolidation Officer under Section 21(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, stating that chak road has been proposed connecting it to the main road which is over circuitous road and therefore, wanted to change in the course of the chak road so as to not cause any inconvenience to the villagers. It was further stated that in case proposal of the petitioner is accepted it would not adversely effect the other chak holders.

¶11

The Consolidation Officer by means of order dated 30.07.2025, allowed the objections of petitioner and amended the chak road which would further effect the chak holders of Chak No. 497, 604, 189 and 673. The petitioner was aggrieved by order of Consolidation Officer dated 30.07.2025 inasmuch as despite the fact that chak road was granted to the petitioner but the exact chak road which was proposed by the petitioner was denied. Therefore, appeal was preferred before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation).

¶12

WRIB No. 82 of 2026

¶13

¶14

The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) has also considered the case of the petitioner and rejected the appeal, stating that in case proposal of the petitioner is accepted, then, chak of chak holder 604 Somraj S/o Puttu and chak holder of chak no. 189 namely Dhaniram S/o Puttu, their holdings will be divided in two parts and it will cause difficulty in conducting agricultural activities and did not find any ground for agreeing to the particular direction of chak road and rejected his appeal.

¶15

Subsequently, revision was filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who also has rejected the revision by order dated 09.12.2025, affirming the orders of the Consolidation Officer dated 30.07.2025 as well as order of Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dated 30.07.2025.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that his proposal ought to have been accepted and in case proposed chak road is granted, then it will extent for 2Km extra, hence the villagers will have to travel more distance.

¶17

Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that objections made by the petitioner were made belatedly the the objections should be made at the initial stage of the consolidation operations. Objections if any, should be preferred at the stage of Section 9 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

¶18

Apart from the above, it is noticed that already a chak road exists alongwith the boundaries of the petitioner's holdings which connects village - Sahabuddinpur, and accordingly it cannot be said that chak of the petitioner is not connected with any chak road and it is the second chak road connecting particular village which has been granted to the petitioner by the order of Consolidation Officer.

¶19

Accordingly, this Court do not find that there is any violation of any provision of Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. Apart from the above, the chak road has also been granted to the petitioner and even if, it causes inconvenience to the extent that same is longer in length regarding its connectivity to the village, cannot be a ground for interference with the impugned orders dated 09.12.2025, 30.07.2025 and 13.10.2025.

¶20

WRIB No. 82 of 2026

¶21

¶22

Petitioners proposal would cause division of holdings of other chak holders.

¶23

In the light of above, no interference is required in the matter. The writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed .

¶24

(Alok Mathur,J.)

¶25

February 13, 2026

¶26

A. Verma

¶27

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Santosh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Taj Mohammad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and Others

Ram Bahadur Singh and 2 Others vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Officer, Pratapgarh and Others

Anant Ram Mishra vs Deepak Mishra and Others

Smt. Pushpa Devi vs Additional Commissioner Administration- Ii, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and Others

Ram Nageena Sonkar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others

Ram Bhajan Singh vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief / Prin. Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others